Individual will, reality creation and miracles

[Karl]

I lived with a lucky black cat, his name was already Magic when he arrived. He was demanding and insisted that if I was going to read, that I do so aloud for him.

And honestly, Glinda did kind of come across as a bit too saccharinely sweet... wickedly so, imo. Hehe

You forgot the 'in my opinion' part Karl.

 

Who else's opinion could it possibly be ? I wrote it, so it's obviously my opinion.

[Karl]

Hi Michael,

 

I first want to point out that I did not plagerize either Newton's or Leibniz's thoughts.  I have never ead either of them.  They are my thoughts.

 

I especially like your pointing to the concept the nature will do only what it has to do.  When out of balance it will do what needs be done in order to harmonize Yin/Yang.

 

The other is about the dinosaurs.  Yes, it was an asteroid.  Asteroids have large amounts of iridium whereas comets do not.

 

And that is why I believe it was a comet that hit Tunguska in 1908 because there was no signs of iridium or even any iron/nickel.

 

 

Anyhow, what were you interested in exploring?  Yea, What caused One to give birth to Two, etc?

 

Based on my understanding of Dao and what science still does not have an answer for, Dao giving birth to one started the process of cause and effect that is still on-going today.  It is called Tzujan (Ziran).

 

Yes, I know, that wasn't an answer.  But it was the best I could do.

 

Where to next?

 

Universe has always existed. There was never a time 'before' or 'after'. Things within the universe are subject to cause and effect, but the universe itself 'the entirety of finite existence' has no cause. Science can only answer certain things pertaining to what's in the universe. Everything is in motion.

[allinone]

If you could manifest then how are you going to manifest a car?

You must manifest all parts and then put them together using your imagination?

 

Or just holding the car picture is enough?

 

Or i could believe in the harmony and don't have to do any procedures, universe is taking care of me when i am playing computer games 24/7.

 

I could have a car very easy, i need to walk around choose the best car on a parking lot and steal it. How deluded i need to be in order to actually do it. I might choose that path, seems legit.

 

edit. Living in harmony is in the context of manifesting by will. Desire is in the context of "I want icecream".

Edited March 6, 2016 by allinone

[Marblehead]

I asked:  Anyhow, what were you interested in exploring?

 

The reconciliation between application of will power on the one hand, faithful acceptance on the other. Practically speaking, we need both. But the right mixture is not always easy to hit.

What did Nietzsche say about the will?
 

Yes, we need both.  (And this is from a hard core believer in free will.)

 

I wouldn't call it "faithful acceptance" though.  Perhaps "grudgingly acceptance"?  But then, yes, acceptance and then letting it go.

 

Yes, Nietzsche was a free willer.  A creator of our own destiny.  I think his most important advice is to know what to will for.  If we are a sheep and are enjoying the pastures then we would be advised to continue being a sheep.

 

I would have to do some research in order to go any deeper than that though.  It's been a while since I have read him.

[Michael Sternbach]

I asked:  Anyhow, what were you interested in exploring?

 

 

Yes, we need both.  (And this is from a hard core believer in free will.)

 

I wouldn't call it "faithful acceptance" though.  Perhaps "grudgingly acceptance"?  But then, yes, acceptance and then letting it go.

 

Well, sometimes just acceptance for the time being. Patience, let's say.

 

Yes, Nietzsche was a free willer.  A creator of our own destiny.  I think his most important advice is to know what to will for.  If we are a sheep and are enjoying the pastures then we would be advised to continue being a sheep.

 

I would have to do some research in order to go any deeper than that though.  It's been a while since I have read him.

 

Oh yes, please go back to your Nietzsche books, if it's not too much to ask. I would be interested in hearing some more of his views on this.

[ilumairen]

Who else's opinion could it possibly be ? I wrote it, so it's obviously my opinion.

 

I was disagreeing with you.

[Marblehead]

Well, sometimes just acceptance for the time being. Patience, let's say.

Yes, this is acceptable.  But then, I generally suggest:  Do what needs be done if it is with our capabilities and capacities and leave the rest alone unless conditions change and more becomes doable.

 

Oh yes, please go back to your Nietzsche books, if it's not too much to ask. I would be interested in hearing some more of his views on this.

Okay.  We will put this on hold until I do my research.  (I still have that "words" concept re Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu to do first though.)

[Marblehead]

I was disagreeing with you.

I get that from people all the time.

[Michael Sternbach]

That you think there is validity in both views cancels out determinism. You had to 'choose' to think that way. You are standing on stolen ground if you could but see it. Retrace your thoughts back to reality from the higher concepts. Anchor everything to existence.

 

Im guessing here, but I suspect the issue is in your belief of the primacy of consciousness. Now, if that's where you are, then what you are really talking about by 'determinism' is possibly the primacy of existence. Is it your contention that mans consciousness partly/fully creates his reality ?

 

Yes, the external reflects the internal.

[Nikolai1]

I start seeing both choice and determination, control and acceptance, the Magician and the High Priestess, as the two sides of a coin. Yes, multiple probabilities exist, we can make better or worse choices between them, and our decisions matter. Yet by the same token (I didn't intend this pun, but it's somehow funny), whatever our choices, the results are as if predetermined, as if meant to be, serving a higher purpose. My mind cannot currently resolve the seeming contradiction here. Perhaps it has got to do with the illusionary nature of cause and effect?

Yes! In order to resolve the contradiction we simply have to learn that everything can be seen from two perspectives.

 

Perspective 1: Our inner will acts upon an external world

 

Perspective 2: Our will is itself a part of the external world.

 

This second perspective is what really opens up in a spiritual awakening, because our identity is seen to be transcendent of both individual will and nature.  Before our awakening our identity is equated with inner will, and thus opposed against nature.

 

I think the important point is that perspective 2 doesn't refute perspective 1, it complements it.  This arational view becomes easier as we settle into the emptiness of our Self.  It then troubles us no more than the fact that my house is on the right side of the street and the left side.  Eventually, we see that it would be irational to settle on one rather than the other.

[Nikolai1]

Contradiction there is :-) define 'contradiction'. Either such a thing is, or it is not, it cannot be both. If it could be both, then no contradiction would be possible and there would exist no word to describe it...poof...like that, it would cease to be.

This is the worldview we awaken from, and talking with Karl allows us all to feel the impossibility of explaining anything to someone who does not have the eyes to see.

[Nikolai1]

Oh yes, please go back to your Nietzsche books, if it's not too much to ask. I would be interested in hearing some more of his views on this. 

Nietzsche attacked conventional notions of free will in many ways and I think MH confuses things by calling him a free-willer per se.  He certainly saw free will as an error at the heart of Christianity and gave people the sense of moral responsibility which is the chief trait of the herd thinker.

 

As I remember much of his criticism is of the notion of causality upon which free will rests.  Any given cause is also an effect when viewed from a different persective.  The danger of the moral man is that he views himself as causa sui, a cause in himself, without taking into consideration all the conditions that led up to moment of choice.

 

I don't think Nietzsche has much to say to the matter at hand. He resolved this issue of freedom and determinism simply by taking interest in power of will.  Power is the only alternative to morality - it is the true force that shapes reality.  His ideal man does not disempower himself by adherence to old superstitions codes.  He acts with power and without pity.

 

This is all quite un-Daoist.  For the Daoist power of intention and the virtue of the intention co-arise.  The sage only experiences weak intention when the virtue is also weak.  When the intention is virtuous, it is sure to happen.

[Marblehead]

I see you and I are going to have an enjoyable time disagreeing with each other after I have done my research and presented my findings.

Nietzsche attacked conventional notions of free will in many ways and I think MH confuses things by calling him a free-willer per se.  He certainly saw free will as an error at the heart of Christianity and gave people the sense of moral responsibility which is the chief trait of the herd thinker.

I don't get confused.  Sometimes I am wrong but I reserve that right.

 

Christianity, in Neitzsche's opinion, was a negation of free will, a negation of the will to power.

 

As I remember much of his criticism is of the notion of causality upon which free will rests.  Any given cause is also an effect when viewed from a different persective.  The danger of the moral man is that he views himself as causa sui, a cause in himself, without taking into consideration all the conditions that led up to moment of choice.

Well, Damn!!!  You did confuse me with that.

 

And yes, the Superman can be the cause.  That's what the will to power is all about.  We don't have to sit passively and accept all the effects of the causes others have created.  We can be our own cause.

 

I don't think Nietzsche has much to say to the matter at hand. He resolved this issue of freedom and determinism simply by taking interest in power of will.  Power is the only alternative to morality - it is the true force that shapes reality.  His ideal man does not disempower himself by adherence to old superstitions codes.  He acts with power and without pity.

But that's what Nietzsche is all about - individual will.  He places the Superman above all other powers including God.  That's why he declared God dead.  That power no longer existed for Nietzsche.

 

And freedom is a negation of determination.  We gain freedom via the will to power.

 

Yes, freedom (power) is his alternative to the Christian morality of his day that he spoke so harshly against.

 

Agree with your last two sentences.

 

This is all quite un-Daoist.  For the Daoist power of intention and the virtue of the intention co-arise.  The sage only experiences weak intention when the virtue is also weak.  When the intention is virtuous, it is sure to happen.

Ah!  Contrary, my Dear.  Wu wei is without intention.  Wu wei is doing only what needs be done.  This is accomplished through the will to power.  It ignores the morality standards of others.  It allows the Taoist Sage to become Nietzsche's Superman.

[Nikolai1]

Ah!  Contrary, my Dear.  Wu wei is without intention.  Wu wei is doing only what needs be done.  This is accomplished through the will to power.  It ignores the morality standards of others.  It allows the Taoist Sage to become Nietzsche's Superman.

I agree that the sage doesn't act in order to be moral; it is more that he is only capable of the moral action.  And the moral action has the Dao behind it - this is a distinctively Chinese idea - Daoist and Confucian both.

 

This latter point, in my opinion, is something that Nietzsche never came to realise.  The Superman is an intrinsically moral man.  He is pitiless perhaps, but never one to impose an unnecessary harm on a person because he does not wish to enervate himself; he does not wish to squander his power.

 

Chinese thought here enables us to harmonise Nietzsche with the Christian tradition.  We do not need his neurotic 'demolition of all values'; all we need us to stop making our moral concerns the centre of our existence, because that is a recipe for misery and mediocrity...and puts us at risk of the being the slaves of those who have no such scruples.

 

But back to the theme of the thread, to my knowledge Nietzsche said nothing of the miraculous.  I think he was basically a materialist who viewed the natural world rather like Schopenhauer: a blind, striving Will that the mere human cannot know or understand.  Individual adjustment to this Will is one way of viewing wu wei; but in my opinion there is a higher, more dramatic understanding.  The Will of the world and the will of the man can be seen to be one, and we become as irrepressibly creative as Nature herself.

[Marblehead]

Excellent response Nikolai1.

 

The only twitch I had when reading is this:  Chinese thought here enables us to harmonize Nietzsche with the Christian tradition.

 

Instead of "Christian" I would accept "Jewish".

 

I agree, we don't need the "demolition of all values".  We do, however, need to destroy the "herd mentality".

 

But really, Nietzsche never did complete his philosophy and this is one of the reasons he has been mis-quoted and mis-represented.  Had he not become sickly and died prematurely he may have been able to complete it.

[Nikolai1]

But really, Nietzsche never did complete his philosophy and this is one of the reasons he has been mis-quoted and mis-represented.  Had he not become sickly and died prematurely he may have been able to complete it.

It is up to we, his heirs, to complete it.  Could one man have propellled human thought forward more than Nietzsche did? He was a martyr.  I cannot imagine how lonely he must have been.  He was alone in all humanity because he didn't or couldn't recognise who his peers and comrades were...Buddha, Nagarjuna, Chuang-tzu.

 

But by going it alone he was able to prepare the western thinker so that they could properly understand the high wisdom tradtions of the world.  From west to east, he built a bridge but did not have the strength to actually walk it for himself.

[Marblehead]

Nicely said.

 

He actually did speak kindly of Buddhism.  I have seen nothing to indicate that he was aware of Taoist Philosophy.

 

Perhaps you are right and it is up to us to complete his work.

 

And yes, I am sure he was a very lonely person.  He could not associate with those he felt were being bigotted and hypocritical.  His relationship with Wagner, which he wrote much about, is a perfect example.

[Nikolai1]

And yes, I am sure he was a very lonely person.  He could not associate with those he felt were being bigotted and hypocritical.  His relationship with Wagner, which he wrote much about, is a perfect example.

He was so alone intellectually as well.  He was saying things that were totally unthinkable for everyone.  I mean, even today it is hard to get people to understand the radical enormity of his arguments, but at least we have his name to back us up if we need it.  He had nothing except himself.  He is a martyr in the truest sense; madness was the only course available to him.

 

He dreaded that one day people would pronounce him holy.  I must confess that I often come close

[Karl]

This is the worldview we awaken from, and talking with Karl allows us all to feel the impossibility of explaining anything to someone who does not have the eyes to see.

 

Strangely ironic ;-)

[Karl]

It is up to we, his heirs, to complete it.  Could one man have propellled human thought forward more than Nietzsche did? He was a martyr.  I cannot imagine how lonely he must have been.  He was alone in all humanity because he didn't or couldn't recognise who his peers and comrades were...Buddha, Nagarjuna, Chuang-tzu.

 

But by going it alone he was able to prepare the western thinker so that they could properly understand the high wisdom tradtions of the world.  From west to east, he built a bridge but did not have the strength to actually walk it for himself.

 

Gawd. Man run by will, to power. The demoniacal individualist. What a great contribution-not. I can see why you might like his philosophy.

[Michael Sternbach]

This is the worldview we awaken from, and talking with Karl allows us all to feel the impossibility of explaining anything to someone who does not have the eyes to see.

You mean, there is nothing we can do to help the poor man awake?

[ilumairen]

You mean, there is nothing we can do to help the poor man awake?

 

And yet, thinking it is our place to determine the time and place of another's awakening is a bit of a dream itself, imo.

 

In that regard we are just further reflections in 'the hall of mirrors'.

[Marblehead]

He was so alone intellectually as well.  He was saying things that were totally unthinkable for everyone.  I mean, even today it is hard to get people to understand the radical enormity of his arguments, but at least we have his name to back us up if we need it.  He had nothing except himself.  He is a martyr in the truest sense; madness was the only course available to him.

 

He dreaded that one day people would pronounce him holy.  I must confess that I often come close

Correction on the madness:  It has been established well enough to state that he died of syphilis.  Symptoms of syphilis include:  Central nervous system damage, including weakness, numbness, trouble walking, difficulty with balance, memory problems.  He experienced those during his last years.

 

But yes, your basic thought is valid.  He was a man alone on his journey.

 

Yes, he did have that fear of being considered holy. 

[Michael Sternbach]

Correction on the madness:  It has been established well enough to state that he died of syphilis.  Symptoms of syphilis include:  Central nervous system damage, including weakness, numbness, trouble walking, difficulty with balance, memory problems.  He experienced those during his last years.

 

In the opinion of many holistic medical practitioners, even illnesses which are caused by a germ have a psychosomatic background, there is nothing accidental about who would be affected by them, and when.

 

But I don't mean to sidetrack this interesting discussion about Nietzsche's views.

 

But yes, your basic thought is valid.  He was a man alone on his journey.

 

Yes, he did have that fear of being considered holy. 

[ilumairen]

In the opinion of many holistic medical practitioners, even illnesses which are caused by a germ have a psychosomatic background, there is nothing accidental about who would be affected by them, and when.

I'm not sure I agree with that conclusion, but the idea of 'psychosomatic' fascinates me.

 

But I don't mean to sidetrack this interesting discussion about Nietzsche's views.

I do.

Edited March 8, 2016 by ilumairen