Free will question?

[Approaching Infinity]

So I was thinking this is the same with our soul. Without activating our soul with unabridged and untainted use of our will, our soul is lifeless, and if it is what it is because of its function, without acting on its function - its not even a soul.

I'd say the soul is never lifeless. It's a matter of whether we have contact with it or not, i.e. whether it seats or not. So for a person that doesn't use their will, it's AS IF their soul was lifeless, for the simple reason that they don't HAVE a soul. But as for the idea of an 'inactive' soul. I don't know. There are probably millions or billions of non-OPs who don't fully manifest their 'soul'. I'd guess that it still expresses itself in certain, limited ways.

- When we talk about a soul becoming seated is this the process by which one's freewill is activated and done so enough that it won't be inactive again?

That would probably depend. For example, what percentage of the population has a seated soul? 50%? Or thereabouts? If so, then I'd answer no. If a person has an 'activated' will, they're in a tiny minority of people. So I'd guess that seating of the soul may occur when the seed of will first shows itself, which manifests in certain tendencies and traits (dissatisfaction with self, positive maladjustment to a pathological environment, empathy, inner conflict, strong emotional bonds, beginnings of discernment, etc.)

- Is this why a child can turn into an adult and struggle with seating the soul and in many cases never firmly seat the soul at all?

For many there is no struggle. They simply form their personality in a fairly stable way, in service to their lower 'instincts' - self-preservation, getting a job, having kids, etc. But yeah, a child can probably mature into an adult and still struggle, but for whatever reasons (heredity, childhood experiences, poor environment) can't identify with that part of themselves which is higher than the rest. The lower drives have as strong a voice, or stronger, than the 'seed of the soul'.

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=alkhemst]
I dug up this thread again as I've been pondering this question of freewill and its relationship to the soul, especially in regards to the last C's session.

.....................
I know my questions above kind of leads to that conclusion, but I'm not sold on it, its my current way of seeing it, but would be interested to know others thoughts on that, if its not on track and what would be more so - thanks
[/quote]

Hi Alkhemst,
The questions you raised have certain assumptions implicit in them. And the deductions you make from these questions are valid per my understanding as are AI's inputs on these questions.

Here is a slightly different take on the question of soul and free will based on different starting assumptions. It is based on JG Bennett's (Gurdjieff's direct student) interpretation of some 4th Way principles, physicist turned psychologist Arnold Mindell's work on integrating physics and psychology filtered through my limited layman understanding of quantum theory as well as 4th Way.

Starting with a G quote on soul from Bennett

[quote author=J G Bennett in Study of Man]

It is nearly 40 years ago when I first heard that Gurdjieff - I think it was reported to me - in one of his lectures in the Prieuré had replied to the question "Has man got a soul?"

"No, he has only the raw material of a soul".

And then they said to him "But does it mean that he has nothing at all until he gets a soul?"

and he said "No, everyone has got a soul, only, until this is organized, it is like a kind of cloud; a cloud that floats about inside the body, and wherever that cloud is, there is the centre of interest".
[/quote]

Bennett developed this idea further. He used the metaphor of a steel factory somewhat like your example of a toaster but more elaborate. The factory needs 3 essential components -

- the equipment (building, power supply, machinery etc),

- the raw material that will be transformed through the equipment

- the plan which takes into account not only the previous two components but also the situation outside the factory - like availability of raw material, market demand for finished product, cost of production etc

Applying the above analogy to "man", the equipment in the factory correspond to the physical body and the mind including the thinking, feeling and sensing functions. The equipment needs to be in good working condition and appropriate for the type of raw material it would work on.

The raw material for man is the "soul stuff" - something which has the potential to be transformed much like iron ore can be transformed into steel.

The plan is more mysterious in nature. It is not an individual will at least in the sense we normally understand the term individual or "I". In the 4th Way sense, this will may be said to come from the "higher centers".


It may be possible to correlate the above 3-fold analogy to quantum theory. The body and psychological functions would roughly correspond to what we call consensus reality, incorporating matter and observable behavior - the collapsed, measurable quantum wave function. The "soul stuff material" could correspond to the total wave function comprising of different potentialities, only some of which are realized in measurable and observable space-time. One's physical body with its shape, height weight and other characteristics, set of learned skills used in a profession and social/family life are all things that can be observed in consensus reality. What is not fully observable is the potential - what else could potentially be done with the body and abilities in different circumstances. From the standpoint of quantum physics, the total wave function is comprised of potentials (mathematically a complex number with both real and imaginary parts) while the collapsed wave function is measurable in reality (mathematically a real number obtained from the complex number through an operation called conjugation).

What we are and what we could be - the so called "real" part and the potential "imaginary" parts are relatively more straightforward. The third part - call it plan or free will is not so readily identifiable. There is one particular interpretation of quantum mechanics coming from David Bohm and others called pilot wave theory which may be a candidate. Metaphorically speaking, the pilot wave can influence the collapse of the wave function real-izing certain potentials and not others. The character of the pilot wave is non-local.


So, it seems plausible to me that when we talk of "my free will", there is little possibility of finding an unconditioned version of will in ourselves. What is available as "my free will" is a faint echo or projection of a non-local will that guides life development with dynamically variable intensity. More commonly, this will (not free) is driven by bodily instincts and social conditioning. Even in the latter case the will is not individual but of a collective nature. It is not individual in character in case of the higher will. Like the plan of the factory, the higher will considers various factors outside of the factory, its equipment and even the raw material. The plan however is dependent on the equipment and the raw material for its successful execution. That is why, in 4th Way, the emphasis is on equilibrating the working of the lower centers (equipment) and form a magnetic center ( transformation of soul stuff or raw material) so that a connection can be established with the higher centers (plan or higher will).

If the above scheme is valid, then the question of soul seating itself in the body is not an one time event but an ongoing or stalled transformation process. Usually, a raw material needs to be cleansed and refined before it can be put through the equipment for transformation. While growth of knowledge involves the intellectual,emotional and moving centers, growth of being takes place through conscious suffering and may be analogous to the refinement process. These two processes - growth of knowledge and being - are within our control to an extent. If these processes progress satisfactorily in keeping with some higher plan, then we may "receive" more free will from higher, non-local sources increasing our capacity to be and to do. The reference to activation of DNA or receiving additional strands of DNA may be the physical reflection of such a transformation process.

A lot of the above is speculation. So take fwiw.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

So, it seems plausible to me that when we talk of "my free will", there is little possibility of finding an unconditioned version of will in ourselves. What is available as "my free will" is a faint echo or projection of a non-local will that guides life development with dynamically variable intensity. More commonly, this will (not free) is driven by bodily instincts and social conditioning. Even in the latter case the will is not individual but of a collective nature. It is not individual in character in case of the higher will. Like the plan of the factory, the higher will considers various factors outside of the factory, its equipment and even the raw material. The plan however is dependent on the equipment and the raw material for its successful execution. That is why, in 4th Way, the emphasis is on equilibrating the working of the lower centers (equipment) and form a magnetic center ( transformation of soul stuff or raw material) so that a connection can be established with the higher centers (plan or higher will).

I wanted to post something about this too. I think free will is a misnomer. No will can be truly 'free' - it is always conditioned or directed from something. In the case of those without a soul, I think those determining factors would be heredity (psychological and biological type) and social factors. So at the lowest levels, 'will' is fully determined by automatic factors. But there are higher, more conscious factors too.

The the will must past through a stage of indeterminism before it becomes 'free' to be directed by those higher factors (what Dabrowski called the 'personality ideal', with its objective values - higher centers in G's words). But after that, it is no longer 'free' - it is simply determined by higher principles. Here's how Dabrowski described it:

In the psychophysiological structure of man, the problem of “free will” arises only at the level of disintegrative, introspective activities. One can hardly speak of free will in almost automatic instinctive attitudes. In man’s cycle of development we may speak rather of the process of “growing richer” in freedom. The development of man proceeds from biological determination to psychological indeterminacy (the phase of developmental disintegration) and then to secondary moral “determination” (the secondary phase). We may, therefore, say that in the middle phase we have an unsteady will, and in both extreme phases free will experientially does not exist. ...

The volitional act may concern external acts and internal resistances; its essence, however, is internal conflict. ... In the pursuit of personality this exertion of will is a result of a struggle between the lower and the higher dynamisms. The exertion of volition may also reflect a very high tension, even when the lower levels are indeed clearly controlled, but the endeavor for the ideal, the need for binding oneself to and for unification with the higher hierarchy of values, is so great that the tension does not abate; instead the individual is “consumed” by the need for a “full” and complete denial of the lower levels of his personality. ... Such a state is described by Kierkegaard in Fear and Trembling as obligatory for the man who would be “fearless amidst terror, passions and temptations of life, who should move forward along the path of faith, which, though steep and dangerous, will lead him to the goal. The faith must be calm, humble, ready for sacrifices, sufferings and hardships. Silence, fear and trembling -- this is how it is reflected. However, to attain such faith one must go through the wild and ghastly forest full of thistles and thorns, in which one must struggle along, after the fashion of Durer’s knight, who is self-confident and trusting in God, whom he serves and whom he loves.” Such a state was experienced by St. Paul when he said that he was no more acting himself but was an instrument of God.

 

[Sol Logos]

So, it seems plausible to me that when we talk of "my free will", there is little possibility of finding an unconditioned version of will in ourselves. What is available as "my free will" is a faint echo or projection of a non-local will that guides life development with dynamically variable intensity. More commonly, this will (not free) is driven by bodily instincts and social conditioning. Even in the latter case the will is not individual but of a collective nature. It is not individual in character in case of the higher will. Like the plan of the factory, the higher will considers various factors outside of the factory, its equipment and even the raw material. The plan however is dependent on the equipment and the raw material for its successful execution. That is why, in 4th Way, the emphasis is on equilibrating the working of the lower centers (equipment) and form a magnetic center ( transformation of soul stuff or raw material) so that a connection can be established with the higher centers (plan or higher will).

I wanted to post something about this too. I think free will is a misnomer. No will can be truly 'free' - it is always conditioned or directed from something. In the case of those without a soul, I think those determining factors would be heredity (psychological and biological type) and social factors. So at the lowest levels, 'will' is fully determined by automatic factors. But there are higher, more conscious factors too.

The the will must past through a stage of indeterminism before it becomes 'free' to be directed by those higher factors (what Dabrowski called the 'personality ideal', with its objective values - higher centers in G's words). But after that, it is no longer 'free' - it is simply determined by higher principles. Here's how Dabrowski described it:

In the psychophysiological structure of man, the problem of “free will” arises only at the level of disintegrative, introspective activities. One can hardly speak of free will in almost automatic instinctive attitudes. In man’s cycle of development we may speak rather of the process of “growing richer” in freedom. The development of man proceeds from biological determination to psychological indeterminacy (the phase of developmental disintegration) and then to secondary moral “determination” (the secondary phase). We may, therefore, say that in the middle phase we have an unsteady will, and in both extreme phases free will experientially does not exist. ...

The volitional act may concern external acts and internal resistances; its essence, however, is internal conflict. ... In the pursuit of personality this exertion of will is a result of a struggle between the lower and the higher dynamisms. The exertion of volition may also reflect a very high tension, even when the lower levels are indeed clearly controlled, but the endeavor for the ideal, the need for binding oneself to and for unification with the higher hierarchy of values, is so great that the tension does not abate; instead the individual is “consumed” by the need for a “full” and complete denial of the lower levels of his personality. ... Such a state is described by Kierkegaard in Fear and Trembling as obligatory for the man who would be “fearless amidst terror, passions and temptations of life, who should move forward along the path of faith, which, though steep and dangerous, will lead him to the goal. The faith must be calm, humble, ready for sacrifices, sufferings and hardships. Silence, fear and trembling -- this is how it is reflected. However, to attain such faith one must go through the wild and ghastly forest full of thistles and thorns, in which one must struggle along, after the fashion of Durer’s knight, who is self-confident and trusting in God, whom he serves and whom he loves.” Such a state was experienced by St. Paul when he said that he was no more acting himself but was an instrument of God.

Was reflecting on somewhat the same lines with that analogy of the factory and how the plan (will) isn't necessarily limited by the equipment or the raw material at any given time. Let's say the plan comes from the factory director, he can plan to upgrade the equipment and source richer raw material that can be transformed into something completely new, but that's a top down direction. Without that plan, the factory would run as it did before (on predetermined programs) because the equipment and the raw material couldn't change on its own without direction from above.

So perhaps that's the opening to the higher will we're talking about, its making and executing a plan (will) that's not subject solely to our current condition (consensus reality), but inclusive of and towards our higher potential (that we can't easily see).

But then the "free" part does comes into play here as a choice of wills. For example, I am free to choose the higher will (on the rare occasions I notice it) or for lack of a better term the lower will, which is more of the same running of programs.

Yet that "freeness" wouldn't be precluded even if say we used the higher will all the time, we wouldn't choose to BUT we could choose to regress back to using the lower will at any point in time. So wouldnt the existence of that choice, be this self autonomy or freeness of will?

 

[Deleted member 9511]

It occurred to me years ago, and I haven't seen anything to discredit this notion, that truly free-will is freedom from having to choose.

If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice
-Rush

Spontaneity of action, or non-action because it is non-volitional action, is supposed to be the way of the liberated sage. I see it as a liberated soul, being unbound by consideration of other-than-self, is freed from having to choose anything at all. Thus free-will is freed-will, or will that is liberated from ideas of this-or-that. When those boundaries are lifted, there is no this-or-that, but there still dynamism of being. So things happen, and there appears to be individuals doing them. The writer who used the pseudonym Wei Wu Wei was all about making that distinction (Wei Wu Wei means action non-action, or so I recall). And David Bohm wrote beautifully in "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" about a different perspective of being, where the mind is not identified with objects but with actions. Makes sense to me. Being is a verb before it is a noun, and I Am is more about active being than about being an object that is subjected to the whims of nature. Finally, what is will, but simply the recognition of our innate eternity as that very Being? I will (insert planned, yet totally irrelevant action here). That action might not get done, but I will be there regardless. I may be there in this body or not, maybe as a memory or who-knows-what, but, even as an echo, I will be. I will be unqualified. I will be free of this-or-that, whether or not I recognize it, and thus, freed from having to will anything. In a word: Liberation.

Who knows how long I've loved you
You know I love you still
Will I wait a lonely lifetime?
If you ask me to I will
-Beatles

 

[Sol Logos]

So I was thinking this is the same with our soul. Without activating our soul with unabridged and untainted use of our will, our soul is lifeless, and if it is what it is because of its function, without acting on its function - its not even a soul.

I'd say the soul is never lifeless. It's a matter of whether we have contact with it or not, i.e. whether it seats or not. So for a person that doesn't use their will, it's AS IF their soul was lifeless, for the simple reason that they don't HAVE a soul. But as for the idea of an 'inactive' soul. I don't know. There are probably millions or billions of non-OPs who don't fully manifest their 'soul'. I'd guess that it still expresses itself in certain, limited ways.

Was a better analogy with the raw material of a soul that obyvatel brought up than my turned off toaster - but for that I'm still wondering if we can say that having the raw material is synonymous with having a soul?

- When we talk about a soul becoming seated is this the process by which one's freewill is activated and done so enough that it won't be inactive again?

That would probably depend. For example, what percentage of the population has a seated soul? 50%? Or thereabouts? If so, then I'd answer no. If a person has an 'activated' will, they're in a tiny minority of people. So I'd guess that seating of the soul may occur when the seed of will first shows itself, which manifests in certain tendencies and traits (dissatisfaction with self, positive maladjustment to a pathological environment, empathy, inner conflict, strong emotional bonds, beginnings of discernment, etc.)

That makes sense, it being dependent on something like a spark of will, like a fraction of a moment perhaps but sincere self reflection for example.

 

[Sol Logos]

It occurred to me years ago, and I haven't seen anything to discredit this notion, that truly free-will is freedom from having to choose.

If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice
-Rush

Spontaneity of action, or non-action because it is non-volitional action, is supposed to be the way of the liberated sage. I see it as a liberated soul, being unbound by consideration of other-than-self, is freed from having to choose anything at all. Thus free-will is freed-will, or will that is liberated from ideas of this-or-that. When those boundaries are lifted, there is no this-or-that, but there still dynamism of being. So things happen, and there appears to be individuals doing them. The writer who used the pseudonym Wei Wu Wei was all about making that distinction (Wei Wu Wei means action non-action, or so I recall). And David Bohm wrote beautifully in "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" about a different perspective of being, where the mind is not identified with objects but with actions. Makes sense to me. Being is a verb before it is a noun, and I Am is more about active being than about being an object that is subjected to the whims of nature. Finally, what is will, but simply the recognition of our innate eternity as that very Being? I will (insert planned, yet totally irrelevant action here). That action might not get done, but I will be there regardless. I may be there in this body or not, maybe as a memory or who-knows-what, but, even as an echo, I will be. I will be unqualified. I will be free of this-or-that, whether or not I recognize it, and thus, freed from having to will anything. In a word: Liberation.

Who knows how long I've loved you
You know I love you still
Will I wait a lonely lifetime?
If you ask me to I will
-Beatles

I know what you're saying there but there's a real danger in many people (not saying you) walking a path convinced they want to transcend "the self" but really are motivated by abdicating responsibility and taking those hard steps.that come with it.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Yet that "freeness" wouldn't be precluded even if say we used the higher will all the time, we wouldn't choose to BUT we could choose to regress back to using the lower will at any point in time. So wouldnt the existence of that choice, be this self autonomy or freeness of will?

Yeah, I think so.

 

[obyvatel]

Yet that "freeness" wouldn't be precluded even if say we used the higher will all the time, we wouldn't choose to BUT we could choose to regress back to using the lower will at any point in time. So wouldnt the existence of that choice, be this self autonomy or freeness of will?

It seems to me that choice and "free" will are different things. There could be different reasons behind connecting or conflating the two. One possibility that comes to mind arises from the question posed in the form "if there is a choice, who is doing the choosing". Answer: "I" am doing the choosing". By extension "if I am choosing, then I must be free to choose, and so freedom of choice ties in to my free will".

Differing understanding of what "free" is may cause some confusion. Free is a relative term and does not equate to unconditioned or uninfluenced per my understanding. So we have the ability to choose but that does not have to arise from an unconditioned and uninfluenced will.

The sticking point is likely to boil down to the dominant Newtonian world view of discrete individual entities interacting with each other, with a clearly defined subject (who chooses for example) and a clearly defined object (things to choose from or act on).

A different view can be more relational and interdependent. Choices exist as potential regardless of whether they are exercised or not, very much like the quantum wave function of potentialities. The act of choosing collapses the wave function and realizes one potential out of the many. Not all potentials are equally likely to be realized - probabilities dictate which are more or less likely to happen based on environmental conditions (of which we are a part). Yet there is an inherent uncertainty in how a specific choice will be realized. Less probable choices can materialize and are more interesting from an information content perspective. When such a less likely choice materializes, we could interpret it as

- we "chose" this event based on our free will, knowledge and being

Or

- a less likely potential materialized through us and the related environment as an interconnected whole. Our knowledge and being played a role in this process. As far as "will" goes, as I said in the previous post, it is non-local in nature per my understanding. It does not belong to us but can express through us like a plan or pattern.

I have a preference for the second interpretation - but I do not know if it is more or less "valid" than the first. The questions raised and explored through the two interpretations are somewhat different. This may lead to different outcomes and ways of organizing information - or they may converge further along on similar outcomes - I do not know.

 

[Sol Logos]

- we "chose" this event based on our free will, knowledge and being

Or

- a less likely potential materialized through us and the related environment as an interconnected whole. Our knowledge and being played a role in this process. As far as "will" goes, as I said in the previous post, it is non-local in nature per my understanding. It does not belong to us but can express through us like a plan or pattern.

Could both be the case?

Let's say there's a non local direction or will that exerts influence but does so without force (respecting freewill). The wave is something along those lines. If our souls are like a boat and our will is like a rudder, we can either align our boat to the direction of the wave, or resist and keep a course along an old direction that is regressive (past programming) rather than progressive (soul growth). Our rudders might be firmly set in place on a regressive setting, so probability favours this "choice", but this choice meets increasing resistance especially amidst the wave, and in a sense this resistance is our stubborn will to hold on to "my own" will, be in control of "my own" destiny.

Rather, there's a decision that can happen anytime to let go. That decision occurring I would say increases in probability as experiencing the calamities of resistance increases. I don't know if that decision is freewill, but its one of those decisions that doesnt have an agenda of being self serving anymore. Its more an alignment with the higher will we're talking about, but it seems to me that takes aligning local and non local wills - who's will then is responsible is kind of a mute point as they end up being the same will if you know what I mean.

But if we have the local will out of alignment with the non local (higher) will, and the higher influences but won't step over the local will (respecting freewill); the ability to respond differently only lies with the local. That's because the higher will doesnt require shifting, only the local needs to do that.

So this ability to respond is in other words - our responsibility. If the goal has always been alignment with the higher will, which must also be aligning to the wave for example, to ride the wave, the responsibily lies with our soul to do that, at least that's what I'm speculating. In the end whether that responsibility is freewill, I don't know.

 

[1peacelover]

Rather, there's a decision that can happen anytime to let go. That decision occurring I would say increases in probability as experiencing the calamities of resistance increases. I don't know if that decision is freewill, but its one of those decisions that doesnt have an agenda of being self serving anymore. Its more an alignment with the higher will we're talking about, but it seems to me that takes aligning local and non local wills - who's will then is responsible is kind of a mute point as they end up being the same will if you know what I mean.

My observation is freewill also means taking responsibility for ones choices. Even when we "think" we don't have choices, we do. They may not be choices we like, but we always have choices. Along with the choice 'to do' or 'not to do', creates infinite actions/reactions. This is where thinking like a hammer comes in. We then have to consciously focus & try to make the best 'choice' based on STO/STS. Many times either choice 'to do' or 'not to do' are very painful, but as the C's say "All is lessons." It is what we get from the experience that adds to our knowledge base.

 

[Sol Logos]

Rather, there's a decision that can happen anytime to let go. That decision occurring I would say increases in probability as experiencing the calamities of resistance increases. I don't know if that decision is freewill, but its one of those decisions that doesnt have an agenda of being self serving anymore. Its more an alignment with the higher will we're talking about, but it seems to me that takes aligning local and non local wills - who's will then is responsible is kind of a mute point as they end up being the same will if you know what I mean.

My observation is freewill also means taking responsibility for ones choices. Even when we "think" we don't have choices, we do. They may not be choices we like, but we always have choices. Along with the choice 'to do' or 'not to do', creates infinite actions/reactions. This is where thinking like a hammer comes in. We then have to consciously focus & try to make the best 'choice' based on STO/STS. Many times either choice 'to do' or 'not to do' are very painful, but as the C's say "All is lessons." It is what we get from the experience that adds to our knowledge base.

Agree, we don't live in a bubble separate from everything else, so there always going to be a spectrum of influences that should be taken into account BUT I feel the kernel of responsibility lies with the one ultimately making a choice. Is that freewill and is that what makes a soul more than just raw material, essentially what defines a soul being a soul? It makes sense but I'm not sure if it is so.