[AGL] reply to Michele's statement

[Michael Eisenstadt]

Ewie,

Every thing you say three times is true. You
owe us one.

Mike

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Irwin" <billi at aloha.net>
To: "survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 60s" 
<austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: [AGL] reply to Michele's statement


> Free will is a delusion Jon.  To better make my case I will just rely on a
> quotation from Eric Fromm on the subject who can better make the case than
> I.  I would use Buddhist thought on the subject but you complain that I 
> was
> being dogmatic.
>
> Our poet laurite framed the question as:
> "Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?"
>
> Fromm explains it:
> What holds true for groups holds true also for individuals. In
>
> every person  there is a potential of archaic forces  which
>
> we have just discussed. Only the thoroughly "evil" and the
>
> thoroughly "good" no longer have a choice. Almost everybody
>
> can regress to the archaic orientation, or progress to the full
>
> progressive unfolding of his personality. In the first case we
>
> speak of the outbreak of severe mental illness; in the second
>
> case we speak of a spontaneous recovery from illness, or a trans
>
> formation of the person into full awakening and maturity.' It is
>
> the task of psychiatry, psychoanalysis, and various spiritual dis-
>
> ciplines to study the conditions under which the one or the other
>
> development occurs and, furthermore, to devise methods by which
>
> the favorable development can be furthered and the malignant
>
> development stopped.3 The description of these methods falls
>
> outside the scope of this book, and is to be found in the clinical
>
> literature of psychoanalysis and psychiatry. But it is important
>
> for our problem to recognize that, aside from the extreme cases,
>
> each individual and each group of individuals can at any given
>
> point regress to the most irrational and destructive orientations
>
> and also progress toward the enlightened and progressive orienta-
>
> tion. Man is neither good nor evil. If one believes in the goodness
>
> of man as the only potentiality, one will be forced into rosy
>
> falsification of the facts, or end up in bitter disillusionment. If
>
> one believes in the other extreme, one will end up as a cynic and
>
> be blind to the many possibilities for good in others and in oneself.
>
> A realistic view sees both possibilities as real potentialities, and
>
> studies the conditions for the development of either of them.
>
>
>
>  These considerations lead us to the problem of man's freedom.
>
> Is man free to choose the good at any given moment, or has he
>
> no such freedom of choice because he is determined by forces
>
> inside and outside himself? Many volumes have been written
>
> on the question of freedom of will and I can find no more
>
> adequate statement as an introduction to the following pages than
>
> William James' remarks on the subject. "A common opinion
>
> prevails," he wrote, "that the juice has ages ago been pressed
>
> out of the free-will controversy, and that no new champion can
>
> do more than warm up stale arguments which everyone has
>
> heard. This is a radical mistake. I know of no subject less worn
>
> out, or in which incentive genius has a better chance of breaking
>
> open new ground—not, perhaps, of forcing a conclusion or of
>
> coercing assent, but of deepening our sense of what the issue
>
> between the two parties really is, and of what the ideas of fate
>
> and of free will really imply."4 My attempt to present in the
>
> following pages some suggestions with regard to this problem
>
> is based on the fact that psychoanalytic experience may throw
>
> some new light on the question of freedom and thus permit us to
>
> see some new aspects.
>
>
>
>   The traditional treatment of freedom has suffered from the
>
> lack of using empirical, psychological data, and thus has led
>
> to a tendency to discuss the problem in general and abstract terms.
>
> If we mean by freedom freedom of choice, then the question
>
> amounts to asking whether we are free to choose between, let
>
> us say, A and B. The determinists have said that we are not free,
>
> because man—like all other things in nature—is determined by
>
> causes; just as a stone dropped in mid-air is not free not to fall, so
>
> man is compelled to choose A or B, because of motives deter-
>
> mining him, forcing him, or causing him to choose A or B.5
>
>
>
>   The opponents of determinism claim the opposite; it is argued
>
> on religious grounds that God gave man the freedom to choose
>
> between good and evil—hence that man has this freedom. Second,
>
> it is argued that man is free since otherwise he could not be made
>
> responsible for his acts. Third, it is argued, man has the sub-
>
> pective experience of being free, hence this consciousness of
>
> freedom is a proof of the existence of freedom. All three argu-
>
> ments seem unconvincing. The first requires belief in God, and a
>
> knowledge of his plans for man. The second seems to be born
>
> out of the wish to make man responsible so that he can be
>
> punished. The idea of punishment, which is part of most social
>
> systems in the past and in the present, is mainly based on what
>
> is  (or  is  considered  to  be)  a  measure  of  protection  for  the
>
> minority of "haves" against the majority of "have nots," and is
>
> a symbol of the punishing power of authority. If one wants to
>
> punish, one needs to have someone who is responsible. In this
>
> respect one is reminded of Shaw's saying, "The hanging is over—
>
> all that remains is the trial." The third argument, that the con-
>
> sciousness of freedom of choice proves that this freedom exists,
>
> was already thoroughly demolished by Spinoza and Leibniz.
>
>
>
> Spinoza pointed out that we have the illusion of freedom because
>
> we are aware of our desires, but unaware of their motivations.
>
> Leibniz also pointed out that the will is motivated by tendencies
>
> which are partly unconscious. It is surprising indeed, that most of
>
> the discussion after Spinoza and Leibniz has failed to recognize
>
> the fact that the problem of freedom of choice cannot be solved
>
> unless one considers that unconscious forces determine us, though
>
> leaving us with the happy conviction that our choice is a free
>
> one. But aside from these specific objections, the arguments for
>
> the freedom of will seem to contradict everyday experience;
>
> whether this position is held by religious moralists, idealistic
>
> philosophers, or Marxist-leaning existentialists, it is at best a noble
>
> postulate, and yet perhaps not such a noble one, because it is
>
> deeply unfair to the individual. Can one really claim that a man
>
> who has grown up in material and spiritual poverty, who has
>
> never experienced love or concern for anybody, whose body has
>
> been conditioned to drinking by years of alcoholic abuse, who
>
> has had no possibility of changing his circumstances—can one
>
> claim that he is "free" to make his choice? Is not this position
>
> contrary to the facts; and is it not without compassion and, in the
>
> last analysis, a position which in the language of the twentieth
>
> century reflects, like much of Sartre's philosophy, the spirit of
>
> bourgeois individualism and egocentricity, a modern version of
>
> Max Stirner's Der Einzige. und sein Eigentum (The Unique One
>
> ^ThT^pSTJosition, determinism, which postulates that man
>
> is not free to choose, that his decisions are at any given point
>
> caused and determined by external and internal events which
>
> have occurred before, appears at first glance more realistic and
>
> rational. Whether we apply determinism to social groups and
>
> classes or to individuals, have not Freudian and Marxist analysis
>
> shown how weak man is in his battle against determining in-
>
> stinctive and social forces? Has not psychoanalysis shown that a
>
> man who has never solved his dependency on his mother lacks
>
> the ability to act and to decide, that he feels weak and thus
>
> is forced into an ever increasing dependency on mother figures,
>
> until he reaches the point of no return? Does not Marxist analysis
>
> demonstrate that once a class-such as the lower middle class-
>
> has lost fortune, culture, and a social function, its members lose
>
> hope and regress to archaic, necrophilic, and narcissistic onentations?
>
>
>
>            We conclude, then that man’s actions are always caused by
> inclinations rooted in (usually unconscious) forces operating in his
> personality.  If these forces have reached a certain intensity they may be
> so strong that they not only incline man but determine him – hence he has 
> no
> freedom of choice.
>
>
>
> BTW -  Jon, this from Eric Fromm's book "The Heart of Man".  It is his
> attempt to psychoanalyze the Fascist mind and come to a rationalization of
> the Holocaust.  You might be interested in reading it.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jon Ford" <jonmfordster at hotmail.com>
>
>>
>> Bill== Free will? Read some more philosophy. There are plenty of
>> philosophers who would defend the concept of free will/free choice, even
>> without the prop of a wise creator-God. You are simply being
>> dogmatic,asserting a claim without evidence. You could argue that people
> who
>> believe in free will have a burden to prove it exists, but you can't just
>> state like some tin-pot prophet "free will is a delusion!"
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> >From: "Bill Irwin" <billi at aloha.net>
>> >Reply-To: survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the
>> >60s<austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>
>> >To: "survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the
>> >60s"<austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>
>> >Subject: Re: [AGL] reply to Michele's statement
>> >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 09:23:10 -1000
>> >
>> >Pretty good deconstruction Mike.
>> >If you want wisdom you first have to get rid of delusions.  One delusion
>> >that should go first is that one has free will.
>> >Aloha
>> >
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: "Michael Eisenstadt" <michaele at ando.pair.com>
>> >To: "survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 60s"
>> ><austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>
>> >Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 5:58 AM
>> >Subject: [AGL] reply to Michele's statement
>> >
>> >
>> > > Michele,
>> > >
>> > > You have often spoken to me on this subject but never at such
>> > > length. Permit me to reply interlinearly to some of what you've
> written.
>> > >
>> > > >I believe that God (or whatever name you choose) made us
>> > > because He/She needed love—that in some way He was lonely
>> > > and because He had a need to "see Himself"
>> > >
>> > > According to Hegel, the attempt "to see Himself/Oneself" is the
>> > > ultimate exercise of human consciousness. This suggests to me
>> > > that the attributes you have identified as God's are merely
>> > > human projections.
>> > >
>> > > >He placed us in a perfect place where all our needs were met 
>> > > >(without
>> > > spilling a drop of blood). He gave us free will—otherwise how would
> we
>> > > be like Him and what would our love be worth if we didn't choose it?
>> > >
>> > > Once again, why does free will require a God? Logically, in assuming
>> > > the existence of God, you are committing the error of petitio
>> > > principii (assuming the conclusion as your starting point).
>> > >
>> > > Now I know that you will remind me of your personal experiences
>> > > with you know who. That solves the petitio principii problem. But
>> > > that brings up the veracity of testimonial or testifying. Would that 
>> > > I
>> > > could accept testimony. Testimony is worthless unless confirmed.
>> > >
>> > > >Then came curiosity. Had things progressed in the way He wanted, we
>> > > would have been good, obedient students, matching knowledge with
> wisdom
>> > > and growing towards oneness with Him.
>> > > The Tree of Knowledge was not all about sex, it was about sex and
>> > > everything else. Seduced by instant gratification, we transgressed—
> not
>> > > waiting to learn wisdom as He intended to teach us.
>> > >
>> > > You are assuming that "seduced by instant gratification" is a bad
>> > > thing. You may know this from personal experience. But that is
>> > > not my personal experience. I see absolutely no reason why instant
>> > > sexual or other gratification is bad.
>> > >
>> > > As for wisdom which we all crave, to believe that the deity desires
>> > > that we pursue it, that too is a human projection, an admirable
>> > > one to be sure. There has been a little progress in the human
>> > > pursuit of wisdom. A necessary condition was the invention of
>> > > writing. Part of our progress towards wisdom consists of
>> > > practicing the ascesis of avoiding logical errors. Part of it has
>> > > been the realization that received beliefs (about God and on
>> > > other subjects) are to be examined closely for possible errors.
>> > > Then we can try to think through the issues. If there is no
>> > > reason and no evidence for a belief in God (my viewpoint),
>> > > it is best abandonned as an impediment to the pursuit of
>> > > wisdom.
>> > >
>> > > That's as far as i got in your letter at this time.
>> > >
>> > > Mike
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Get today's hot entertainment gossip
>> http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
>>
>>
>
>