Friday, February 25, 2005

The Crux

Calling all my fellow philosophers! (And, much to my delight, there are a good many of you who read this blog regularly and on whom I know I can rely for your individual insights on the matter to be raised below.) I know that out there we have materialists and dualists, theists and atheists, egoists and altruists, determinists and proponents of free will. And it is about this last matter that I'd like your contributions, if you can spare the mind and moment to post them up. Because, in my philosophical conversations and subsequent solitary ponderings, I have hit at long last what seems to me to be the central crux of the question of free will. Or if not, at least the farthest I've ever got along in the examination of the idea.

This crux, as I'm calling it, has nothing to do with the question of whether free will is physically possible. That's going to depends on your metaphysics, and whether you believe that non-physical substances can exist and can have interactions with physical things. So set that question aside for just a moment, because in order for free will to be physically possible, it must first of all be shown to be logically possible. So to examine the question of its logical possibility, let's just assume for the moment that it could be physically possible (an assumption, never fear, my materialist friends, to which I will not hold you outside of this consideration).

Ok, so, assuming free will is physically possible, how can it actually exist, logically, in the form in which we perceive it to exist? Because, all right, let's look at an individual moment of decision. In that moment, say you have to make the choice between two actions, A and B (for instance, saving a drowning person or running away from the flooding river). And you have a number of inclinations which might lead you to choose A (compassion, affection, desire for praise), and others that might lead you to choose B (self-preservation, fear, anger at the person because just before they fell into the river they insulted your mother). So what you're really choosing is which of those inclinations to follow and which to ignore or at least outweigh. But then you must have certain criteria or beliefs based on which you will make that decision--a belief that helping others is more morally good or socially beneficial or evolutionarily sensible than looking after yourself, or vice versa. And you can continue to work yourself back and back, but eventually you will reach a point at which whatever basic principles you hold will dictate one choice to be more rational than the other. And ok, which basic principles you hold at bottom might be dictated by entirely physical causes--what your parents have taught you, what your personality is more inclined towards, etc. But it's the point between deciding which choice is rational based on this combination of principles, beliefs, inclinations, and facts, and deciding to make that choice, that I'm interested in at the moment. Because here, perhaps, lies the possibility of free will.

See, the tricky thing about free will, assuming it's physically possible, is that it still always seems like, whatever point you're at in the decision-making process, you're always making choices either based on certain reasons, which then means the choice is dictated by those reasons and not really a free choice, or based on no reasons, in the which case it's a totally random decision with no reasons, which also does not seem like free will. But if the only way to make a decision is based on reasons or based on no reasons, and neither of these seems to involve anything that resembles our concept of free will, then it seems like free will cannot logically be possible, because there's no situation in which it could come into use.

But this is where I go back to the moment of decision between recognizing which is the rational choice, and deciding to follow the rational choice. This is the moment of choosing whether to act rationally or irrationally. And how do we make this decision? To make it based on reasons would be to beg the question and presuppose that we should make decisions rationally. Before we have decided whether to act according to rationality or not according to rationality, we can't use either rationality or irrationality as the criterion for making that choice. It is just as logical to say it would be irrational to act irrationally, and so we should, as it would be to say it would be rational to act rationally, and so we should. And somehow, this seems to me to resemble the logical paradox of free will--we cannot make the decision based on reasons. Do we then decide between rationality and irrationality entirely randomly? Or does something else exist behind rationality and reasons, upon which this decision can be in some way (although of course not rationally) based? Does this make sense? I hope so. Anyway, this is the point I have reached, so I'd welcome all insights into the different directions one might go from here. What do you all think about this moment of decision between rationality and irrationality, assuming such a decision could be made? Is it possible? Upon what would the decision be based? Or how would it be made? And, if you can discover, conceive, approximate, or otherwise consider this process, can it used to be applied to the possibility of free will?

I look forward to your replies!

7 Comments:

Blogger Knightley said...

I'm on it.

-k

11:21 PM  
Anonymous Joe Manzari said...

Hey Liz, Kate passed along your email and asked me to share my thoughts. I hope you find my comments engaging …

The Free Will debate (FWD hereafter) is a topic of inquiry specific to the field of metaphysics. The FWD is inextricably tied up in two other questions particular to the field of metaphysics, namely:
1) What is substance? (questions of monism vs. dualism)
2) What is the nature of substance? (questions of the interaction between physical and physical or physical and non-physical).

All the literature we have today on the FWD (which including everything from Ayer to Chisholm to Wolf) gives their account of action by answering those two interrelated questions I just mentioned. So for example, JP Moreland a Christian philosopher gives the following account: I am a substance dualist (his answer to question 1) and I believe that there is both physical determinism and psychological indeterminism (his answer to question 2) Now the strength of his account depends on how well he can give a coherent account of both thos e questions. That is how philosophers have always framed the debate, and I think that is the proper method of inquiry into the topic.

So you ask “Ok Joe, didn’t you read my post? I said I don’t want to deal with the metaphysical questions, I just want to answer the logical question.” So my response would be, well I don’t think you can answer the logical question without giving an account of the metaphysical questions. And actually I think once you give an account of the metaphysical questions, you have an answer to the logical question. So essentially, there is no free lunch. If you want to make headway in the FWD you need to supple an answer to questions 1 & 2.

As an example I will give a précis of my account of free will (credit for which I would give to JP Moreland):
I have strong reason to hold that that substance dualism is true. In other words, both physical and non-physical substances exist. As humans we embody both a physical substance (our actual body) and a non-physical substance (our mind/soul). Both these substances interact with each other. So when I think of a tiger jumping at me my palms get sweaty (that’s the non-physical acting upon the physical) and when I get stuck with a pin I feel pain (physical acting on the non-physical). Furthermore, these two types of substances have different natures. The physical is determinate and the non-physical is indeterminate. So in the same way the regular physical objects are determined, every time I pick up a pen and let go it falls to the floor, the physical part of my body is held to those same laws, so everytime I punch my leg lets say it turns blue. But, the non-physical part of my body, my mind, is not subject to those laws. So I can think whatever thought I want. What causes my thoughts are not other events but rather the cause of my thoughts is me, the agent. In other words, I believe in agent causation not event causation when it comes to mental events. So seeing as how the mental is indeterminate and the mental can act upon the physical, when I go to save the boy in the river or run away I can choose what to do and then actually do it.

The account I just gave, as it stands written, is insufficient at best. To be at all credible I would need to go into arguments for substance dualism and arguments for the interaction of physical and non-physical substances. (For a full account of Morelands view see the chapter on Free Will and Determinism in "Philosophical Foundations For a Christian Worldview" you can find a link to it at my website www.joemanzari.com) What I tried to do here was to give an example of how our thoughts about the FWD should be framed.

So to conclude here are the main points from above to reiterate:
1)In order to answer the question of free will we need to give an account of what substance is and what its nature is.
2)In doing (1) we will have answered the logical question.
3)A coherent account of free will can be given, I would argue, by JP Moreland which rests on substance dualism and non-physical indeterminism.

I hope that helps, if you have any other questions or you would like resources to help guide your inquiry please feel free to email me at: joemanzari at yahoo dot com.

5:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well thats the rub, isn't it? Free Will. I know thats where my egotistical backslide began, and I'm sure I'm not the first person to begin their dive into philosophy from that particular springboard. If you recall Liz, you and I had a discussion some months ago over IMs on this very subject, where I valiantly (or so I perceived then) struggled against the dawning realization that perhaps Egoism and Reason are limited.

Amid the hurled insults against God, the world, and myself we hit upon a very similar subject, which boiled down to "If God is A, and Free Will is B, no combination of A actions will ever reach a B outcome. If you must spend your B to get an A, the only way to maintain your B is to forgo A all together." The only true act of choosing in the equation was deciding to opt for A or B, neither offered freedom from a set chain of events. I have since then re-evaluated the situation. But, no doubt to the surprise of many, I'll tackle this particular issue from a different point of view- that of a Theist. I'll try and stick to my A/B formula however, as I think it helps give the rather tangled subject some clarity.

I'm afraid I may lack the specialized terminology to engage in a "correct" FWD. So rather than rellying on words I'd rather not chance and use incorrectly, I'll settle for describing and providing examples as best I can. From my experience, its not entirely terrible that I have so little 'formal' education in the realm of Philosophy and Metaphyics. Often, I think, a genuine inquiry or important vein of discussion can be drowned out by the loud, authoritative voices or concepts that we've raised on a pedistal in our own minds. So in this regard, hopefully I can shed light on our current Crux from a different perspective.

Anyone who has read C.S. Louis's brain twisting masterpeice "Miracles" will no doubt find much of what I'm about to say familiar. To understand how Free Will affects us as human beings, we need to understand what its acting against. The answer is of course, Nature and the whole set Natural System. (Sorry Liz, I agree with Joe on this point. No 'free lunch' is to be had, you can't address the question without diving into metaphysics!) Lets assume that it IS physically possible? No, no, NO! To make that assumption you've already claimed that Free Will does in fact exist and answered your own question, just indirectly. Let me explain:

Its apparent to me that "Substance dualism" is true. That much I'll gladly agree. There are two forces at work in the world- the Physical and the Ego. (I use Ego in its purest sense, meaning Self and all that entails. Not to be immediately lumped with Egoism which implies glorification of the Self.) You could also call this "Created and Uncreated" or even "Natural and Supernatural". Take your pick.

The natural world appears to be organized. There are many arguments against this, of course, like getting into the specifics of Automics, the fact that the smallest particles of matter appear to be 'chatoic' (Or at the very least can't yet be calculated) in nature. We'll ignore these for the sake of brevity! I'm yet inconclusive on those anyway. We have conceived such things as Natural Law, Physics, Causality, etc. Systematic, multi-personal experience that we call Science has shown that Nature acts in certain ways very predictably. We can't say for certain that it has always been this way, or always will be, but it seems most probable based on human experience. For me, thats enough to continue to expect it to continue much the same unless some other cause (outside nature!) prevents it. Human beings are locked physically into this grid, this set SYSTEM of events. The very nature of Nature, accepting and incorperating all events into it, leaves no room for independent action. No human thought, (which is just a certain position of atoms in your head anyway) or action that exists inside Nature can possibily cause the human to somehow act OUTSIDE of nature. Something from the inside, and of the inside, cannot possibly make itself of the outside. (Actions that exist inside the natural system = A, actions that exist outside nature = B. No combination of A actions can make a B outcome.)

So it becomes obvious that if we are to simply accept that its "Physically possible" you're already admitting that something exists outside nature, so that it may affect a particular action or object within the set Natural System and cause it to be on the outside, and therefore you have the fundamental basis for Free Will. So in affect, if you take this apparently simple 'fact' for granted you will have already answered your inquiry before you began.

Admittedly, this paints a rather bleak picture. If no action within the natural system can support Free Will, then it doesn't matter at all what decision we think we come to when action comes down to Rational or Irrational behavior, because it won't have been a choice at all. I think that this is the problem you are facing when you say: "you're always making choices either based on certain reasons, which then means the choice is dictated by those reasons and not really a free choice, or based on no reasons, in the which case it's a totally random decision with no reasons, which also does not seem like free will."

When we look to the left we see our footsteps in the snow and can see our route backward. No choice there. When we close our eyes and forgo looking all together, trusting to the Irrational, we abdicate our own freedom of choice in the first place. Again, the same dilemma. But what of a third choice, posed by Theists everywhere? The folly in looking Left is in that you can trace the outcome, the trail of little Facts that lead to a decision. But what if, by some miracle (Yes, an action from outside Nature) we have been given access to a Prime Fact that cannot be traced, identified, placed, or quantified? There must be a Third Option of the legend of Free Will is to be proven true, and this seems to me to be it. What if we human beings are rooted not in the natural world, but into an entirely different sort of ground? What if we are grounded not in the chain of smaller facts, but of the Prime Fact? Well, this opens a few more doors and seems worthy of consideration.

Here-in ties the "Ego" into our discussion. That which "Grokks", if you're familiar with Heinlin's Stranger in a Strange Land. This is our thinking, abstracting, free-form thought process that seems to be related to but not distinctly a part of the natural system. Sure, the chemistry of our brain is as much a slave to Natural Law as a rock, but what of thoughts? Thoughts are related to the world in the same way a schematic is related to an elivator. The schematic dictated the behavior of matter to form an elivator, but the schematic itself is not part of the mechanism istselelf. They too seem to be in some degree outside Nature. Emotions, and one might even claim many other perceptions of the mind one might argue, also seem to stand apart and yet inside Nature.

Every human being I have encountered or read about, or spoken with, seems to claim to follow this same rule. In this way, an individual and his "ego" seems to be tied to that universal Fact. I'm sure you can see where this is going: we are compelled to act in one way or another by our faculties that rest within the Ego, these actions appear to tug us in one direction or another very dependably (Much like our observed patterns of Nature), this gives us insight into the nature of the Prime Fact. The Prime Fact is then tied to our Rationality, and our Rationality serves as a ground into the Fact. Because the Fact is its own cause, without reliance on our Natural system, it enables us to act independantly. I.E. "Free Will"

*Scratches his head* I hope that all made sense. I had to skim over a few subjects I'd rather have gone into detail about, but for the sake of brevity I wont! If you've already made it this far through my rambling I commend you! Feel free to contact me at AsiD_ReiGN@yahoo.com if you have something to add, comment on, or chew my head off about.

Phil-o-sophically yours,
-Justin-

4:06 AM  
Anonymous Andy said...

Liz

I'm way back at Erasmus when it comes to dealing with the free will question, so give me some time to re-read and think on this one.

What a fun query!

9:57 PM  
Blogger GrandpaFred said...

Hi Liz! Wonder if I can weigh in on this and see if a different perspective can be of interest. this is my second attempt as the first post I created seems to have disappeared in some prophetic fashion. In any event I am truly impressed and awed by the discourse of the posts so far and have this sense that I am eavesdropping on some philosophical discourse being carried on by Socrates, DesCartes, Nietzche, Santayana, Machiavelli...
Basically, your question seems to boil down to why we do the things we do, and if these decisions are a product of actions that are completely our own, or if they are elements of other factors that make us choose specific actions. I am specifically impressed by not only the content, but the insight in what I shall the "footsteps in the snow" thesis by Justin. Certainly by no means does that give short shrift to Joe Manzari's pithy comments which have much meat to them and are indeed meet as well.
The luxury of my years has given me the opportunity to muse on what has been causal to my actions, decisions, foibles and faux pas that are now accumulated in quantity and inhabit not only the dark recesses of my mind, but the evidence of my living. You have spoken on some concepts that I see as being either classical or operant conditioning which I am sure would be fields of comment from your mother. Some reference to Pavlov and Skinner as to what motivates our actions would be of interest.As well I feel that Santayana (after all, he is a Harvard Man)and Nietzche have opinions worth reading!
There are so many aspects of what is a basic question which makes the subject good fodder for discourse and argument from the perspectives of ontology,cosmology and, perhaps - cosmogony.
I think that other things come into play here as well and those would be instinct and genetic makeup and here I make reference to the scenario of saving the drowning person in the raging river or escaping the attacking tiger. Now here is where I see basic instinct coming into play which may have nothing to do with "will" or decision making but rather our primal fight or flight concept. Another scenario is whether the drowning person is someone with whom you are connected and feel responsible for, such as your mother; and, with the ferocious tiger a situation where you have someone with you, say a small child. In the case of the drowner, would the connection change things; in the case of the attacking Bengal, would the fact that there is a small child change things in so far as perhaps intervening between the tiger and the child? Could these reactions be genetic? Would person A not try to save his dying mother; would person B simply run from the tiger leaving the small child? do we inherit traits such as might be involved here, not of logic, but of fearlessness or its opposite; selfishness or selflessness... And are we just restricting this to one species: Home Sapiens? How about the sea turtle that saves the person in the ocean by allowing him to get up on his back and swimming him to safety; or the dolphin who does some similar thing; or the female gorilla who picks up with tenderness the infant child that wanders into the cage? Are these explained away as Urban Myths or are the true stories and what would cause these creatures to do something to which you would attribute human responses. Is it instinct or free will?
There are those who predate Aristotle who were also seekers into secrets of the cosmos and what makes us tick. The same pursuits existed then as to why things are and why we act in specific manners.
In the skeptic tank were found Sophists such as Protagoras (ca. 485-410 B.C) and Gorgias (483-376)who felt that reality was incomprehensible and also that truth and justice were relative. This brings up another concept as to free will based on culture, education, environment, etc. Socrates quarreled with the Sophist's views and felt that rightful living was connected to the soul which he felt was interconnected with your personality. It was his concept that first we must identify true virtue, then know it and only then could we practice it. This goes to his dialectic preaching because one of his goals (if not the only one) was to convey to people what virtue is rather than having multiple concepts of it depending upon one's own ethos or lack, thereof. A classic case is, of course, the the dialogue he has with Glaucon, Plato's older brother using the parable "The Allegory of the Cave. Plato, of course, had his Theory of the Forms and sought to define the ultimate good. Now, much before the time of Socrates, we had the philosophers Heraclitus (540--480 B. c.) who spoke of an underlying or Guiding Force that he felt was universal and he also felt that reality was dynamic and based on change. Leucippus mused on physical reality and attributed it to ever moving atoms (Greek for "indivisible") whereas Justin has refined this down to what I believe he has quantified as "Quarks" although I think that an even smaller concept has been found. Pythagoras (ca.580-500 B. C)felt that proportion had something to do with this all and that all could be explained in reality with numbersand that all harmony in the universe was mathematical. Democritus went along with Leuppicus on the atom theory feeling that we are all atoms as well, in mind and soul. What this all has to do with free will is that since forever we have been exploring this from all angles to figure out our own species.
So does logic play a part in our free will? Are we so dispassionate? Or is it irrational rationality of its obverse? Can these concepts hold water? If we are rational beings and are logical as well and have been exposed to a sufficiency of life experiences to be able to emotionally react to situations, how can we act one way in one situation and the opposite in another considering that each of these calls for a decision of ethical response. How do we factor in our flawed selves and our emotional beings? When we react to a situation in a negative fashion and justify or rationalize our action that was not appropriate how is this explained? We can treat the same situation just the opposite and respond ethically on another occasion depending upon different circumstance. Now you recently went to a lecture (?) on War and its ethos. Is there a case where it can be argued that war is morally reprehensible or morally justified? What of free will in this instance. We have a will which we can exercise in making war and we can rationalize and justify same on a grand concept. But, what of the casualties of collateral damage?
I think that the key here is that we have been given the power of reason and also the latitude of free will. We come into contact with situations which confront us and then utilizing our powers of reason, our emotional reaction which is a product of our sum total of knowledge and experiences,our intelligence and genetic makeup and we then exercise our free will and react. We then have one more experience to tuck into our bag of tricks for next time! I see many of these things as integral and dependent upon one another. And tell Joe to stop punching himself in the leg!

3:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Because Liz asked it of me, I'm going to -attempt- to elaborate on the concept of a "Spiritual anchor" that has emancipated man from the bonds of his Natural prison. I am loath to do this for several reasons. Primarily, because doing so means that one must undertake the dangerous task of attempting to define aspects of the Supernatural. By the very defintion of what is Supernatural, if one can define it, you have successfully bound it up within the confines of the Natural, and defeated it soundly. Quite the aggrivating concept. Secondly, in doing so I feel that I will be forced to "tilt my hand" and draw upon my own inferences into the nature of God/Supernatural, and that can turn nasty. I'm sure anyone reading this has had that experience before. But for Liz and the persuit of Truth, well... I'm willing to entertain certain sacrifices.

As noted above, the moment that I am able to give a concrete, definitive answer about what is Supernatural, I have defeated myself. Therefore, I cannot draw any valid abstractions upon it even if I dared. My only answer then, in attempting to understand this driving force behind the "Ego," is to observe its affect on myself.

So that we don't find ourselves floundering in a varitable sea of examples, each conveying subtely different connotation of meaning, I'll stick with the examples that have already been given. Let us say for sake of argument that I have been posed with the "boy in the lake" dilemma. In that particular moment I would be confronted with a great many 'tugs' from the Ego, but the two most basic answers have already been given: offer aid or take flight. The various reasonings and motivations behind each action may carry meaning in determining the nature of the choice being made, but not the logical POSSIBILITY of the decision itself, so we will pass it over for the time being. The question here is not in what action to take when the moment comes to its cusp, but rather, if the action we take is really of our own "Will" to begin with. Lets make crystal clear what we mean when we shed light upon the concept of "Will".

Well, where does it come from? Nothing in Nature seems to exhibit the characteristics of what we refer to as our "Will" or motive power. A rock displays no Will in falling, an antelope displays no Will in running from its hunter, these are simply characteristics of its being. One being the nature of gravity, the other of instinct and hereditary experience passed down through animals. To suggest that a rock has a moment of hesitation, where it decides whether or not it will fall to the earth when its support is removed, is pure lunacy. Where then did this concept of Will come from? Or for that matter, the concept of a supreme Truth, or Love, or Mercy? It is easy enough to construct through Reason how such things as greed, avarice, and anger came into being. These things are of the Natural world, the natural response of our mind to a particular stigma in the physical world. But in rhetrospect, the feelings and "high" emotions that we associate with our respective Ego are entirely revolutionary in that regard. Tranquility is the shadow of Anger, but what premise is there for Unconditional Love in the world we live?

Yet these too are as deeply bred into our Ego as much or more than our Natural responses. One might even venture to say, by observing the affects of a young child who has yet to be greatly tainted by our world and its avarice, that they are the most obvious things in the world. I think I assume correctly that I am not the only one who has been deeply moved by a simple, suprisingly direct, peircing coment from a child. "Are you sad?" spoken from the authoritative lips of 5 year old girl is an inquiry that I have found terribly difficult to ignore.

What we have here is the beginning of insight into the nature of the "anchor" that I spoke of earlier. From these basic princibles we can then apply them to our life. When we act in certain ways, often contrary to the nature of our physical world, "against the grain" and often at our own personal expense, we are rewarded with a deeper, more profound joy. When we hear certain music it stirrs in us that feeling of purpose, of drive that dwells within the Ego. When we act against this sub-nature of ours, we pay for it with guilt or pain. In this way it is not unreasonable, I think, to assume that Supernatural force in which we're anchored is more like a Mind than anything we know. The only thing that we know of with a mind is a Being, and in that way, we have revealed more about what we know of The Supernatural Being. Henceforth, God. (I won't bother with polytheism, another time perhaps! But even suggesting it begs the question: who made those Gods, and their creator, and their creator? Henceforth and so-on.)

So our picture develops even further, we have a race of creatures than inhabit a particular natural system. The Prime Fact, or God, from which all sub-facts stem, has installed in his creatures what we have deduced is a small portion of whatever 'substance' he himself is made. "We are in him as he is in us" is commonly quoted in all sorts of Christian text, to this regard. "I [Jesus/God] am the vine, you [people] are the branches." This concept too is almost universal. We are not dealing with some celestial goop, or all-encompassing-force. The picture of God that we are beginning to see is that of a Warrior, or King, or Lord. This is a Being that responds to our behavior, and quite clearly desires one set of actions and not another.

At this point my intrepid reader, you are no doubt starting to wonder where this is all going. Or perhaps you're nodding off at the computer, having realized that this is "just another religious rant" and nothing of consiquent will come of it. What in all perdition does this have to do with Choice? If anything, claiming that there is a living, thinking Lord that dwells within our Ego only seems to lend strength to the argument that even the Supernatural train of thought is just yet another series of events, just at a different slant. And it does appear that way, at first. But there is one key difference.

Let us return to our "footsteps in the snow" metaphore. To look back is to see where you have come, and that way is known. To close your eyes is to abdicate your supposed freedom of choice, trusting in the irrational, and that way is shut. That route is chaos, disorder, and beyond the realm of logic. (And forever will remain that way, for the same reason you cannot define the Supernatural) But through the grace if that "Spiritual anchor" in God, that in turn dwells within the Ego, there is a change. To look back is to see a trail of smaller Facts, that will lead back as far as your logic can carry them. Only when a fact claims to stand alone must you stop. But in God, which is in You, you are posed with a different question.

Obey or disobey. Answer or ignore. Hidden in the question of "Rational or Irrational" is the more important, "Natural or Something-Else"? To take one route is to accept the yoke of innevitability, of causality, of the finite possibility. To take the other, to answer Yes, to Obey, to choose the unknown. In choosing to accept the second choice you accept Him, and in accepting him you accept all that he has to offer. He is free to offer to you everything that he is. To thrust a world of inevitability upon you is to crush the flame of "Free Will" within you that he set ablaze to begin with. To offer himself to you, which is the Fact in which the world stands, is to offer you a cake that you get to eat too. In him you are always free to choose yes or no, to accept a choice or deny it. To take what is abundantly given, or choose the alternative.

So I conclude by returning to our original example of a boy in the lake. In the infinite space of a heartbeat your Ego flashes into high-alert. You are tugged two ways, the natural or the supernatural. Rational or irrational. Created or uncreated. To choose to run, to obey your instincts, to preserve your self, is to answer "No", and take up your mantle as a human creature. This choice leads to causality, and causality is death. To say "Yes" is to accept the unknown, to step out of the realm of possibility and instead into take Gods hand, letting him pull you out of the stream of innevitability and stand apart from it.

Choice? There is but one, and from it all others stem. Creature or Man? We cannot be both.

-Justin-

10:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ammendum-

I'd just like to add here, for clarity, that the prime difference between one set trail of Facts and the Prime Fact, in regard to either being able to offer escape from causality, is that God is a Being completely free of the ties of "And that is why". He is the Prime Fact that is Uncreated, having always existed and always will. From this unique advantage, he is in a position to offer you choices that do NOT spring from rational reasons. Or, if you want to look at it differently, a Divine Reason, which is inherant in us, and from that faculty we are set apart.

-Justin-

4:22 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home