It is possible to not want what one does want. It is impossible to choose what one does choose.
The word "decide" in this phrase: "I decide which hand to raise" is different from the word "decide" in this phrase: "I decide whether it is raining out" (assuming I am not seeding the clouds with silver nitrate!). In the second case there is a reality that I must interrogate in order to detect the truth of the situation. In the first case there is no reality that I can interrogate because, once in possession of the answer I could just "choose" the opposite. In the first case I "make" the reality when I "make" the decision. (There is a similar ambiguity in the word "determine") Now all "deciding" in the first sense occurs within a "capability" that I do not make. It is possible that I should decide to raise my right hand and when I try to it does not raise. No "making" of any decision is ex nihilo. Nevertheless within my capability I decide. The question is then asked which of the two meanings of "decide" should be applied to "what I want". Is desire determinable by the will. In the Medieval world the notion of virtue and vice was related to the notion of habit. It was perceived that what one "desired" was not necessarily what would make one happy - or at least fulfilled. Instead there was a realization that, like the alcoholic that "wants" a drink, having it might bring worse misery. Some might say it brings pleasure now at the expense of pleasure latter. It was believed that by "training" the will, causing the decision to be against what one "wants" in the immediate sense, then the will gradually adjusted like a tree that requires a rope to bend at first but gradually grows that way. One becomes habituated to the decision and eventually the affective motivational structure is changed and one "wants" the Good - or to say it another way - one would become virtuous. Virtue then consists in wanting what will actually make you happy or at least fulfilled, achieved through a habit of choosing what will achieve that same happiness or at least fulfillment *independent* of what one wants right now. This set up culturally the disaster of the notions of "virtue" and "vice" being miss-perceived - that caused them to be perceived as being not related to what one wants - especially as the plays out with respect to sexuality. It is this miss-perception that often lies at the heart of the distinction between sincere liberals and conservatives in America. The theory of kundalini and its relation to the chakras is a good way to understand this. So this seems to point to a dual structure of desire. There is "what you want right now" and "what you really want". Hence the phrase "It is possible not to want what you do want". It is just a play on words that distinguishes between the desire for immediate gratification and either latter gratification or in some cases in a larger desire as to the desired meaning that one wants for ones life. In a sentence: "Desires can be conflicting." As an example, imagine a firefighter who goes into a burning building and rescues a young child. Assume that he knows that it will cause certainly his own death. Does he "want" to do it? In a sense yes, on balance perhaps, but in a very real way no - it is the opposite of what he wants and he wishes really that these circumstances were not present. The notion of "compulsion" further complicates the picture because of the difficulty that can be experienced in actually doing "what one wants" in the final sense of the phrase. It seems to me that this difference answers the question and that desire is not something that I cause by my decision but is something real that I perceive with the caveat that I may, through habituation be able to affect it somewhat and within the realization that my desires can be conflicting and also that the results of my actions can be such that a decision has a good benefit now but is a disaster latter etc. but realizing that at the bottom of it if I have any desire at all it is not a result of my will. The ultimate basis of my desire is not my choice. It is something given to me that I must perceive clearly. Now when we look at this desire carefully instead of casually the plot thickens enormously. It does now and as we gain control of our affective natures through biological manipulation of our - well - I think neurology is overrated and endocrinology is underrated but you get the drift. Once we have that power the crisis will occur. It is already starting and you can hear it in the abortion debate but that is just a dull harbinger. The problem of desire and its expression in the experience of religious ecstasy, the will to power, the basic desires for food etc all must be resolved. We *must* see what it is we *really* want in an environment where we will be able to "manufacture" wants. Ethics and aesthetics merge into a single motivational force that must be perceived in order to know how to decide. The absence of care in this area and the presence of "power mongering" that results will decide whether we become insects not in some abstract way but literally. It is a choice we as a people will soon face. So are we in control? What do I think? Well to coin a phrase *you betcha*. Perhaps not completely as we are limited by our capabilities that are a result of being and not our own creation but within being our capabilities are there and within being they are increasing very rapidly and we are just about to enter an historical era where control of our biology will overwhelm all previous historical trends and create an unprecedented problem. The relationship of cognition to this problem adds another layer. The "forgetful-ness of Being" that Martin Heiddegar talks about, the notion of original sin in Western religion, and the notion of Maya in eastern religions - the fact and possibility of "conversion" not in some abstract religious sense but in the sense of a young boy afraid to jump in the water who suddenly summons his courage and in excitement "jumps" in - all of that must be dealt with if we are to "decide" correctly. There will be those who say "there is no correct way you are free' to choose whichever way you want to go". It just doesn't wash because of the ontological structure of desire. So my response - what I think - Is hell yes, we are in control and frankly, given how we behave and looking at the train we are on there is tremendous risk up the pike. A likely derailment even. What we, as a people and species will become is what is at stake. The hope is found only in the fact that we have been improving over the years. Even Bush did not light his garden with the flaming crucified. For those who don't care because "they will already be dead" the only thing I can say is I think you are wrong about what you want. Yes, yes I know, only *you* are the authority on what *you* want, *you* can "decide" the issue. But all I can say is - just take another look. On Jul 23, 6:59 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I tend to think pretty biologically about control as it's deep-seated > in many animal systems. I think those moments when the conversation > lowers when the boss turns up and when people start shuffling paper > tell us a lot about control. I don't believe in free will much, other > than that we can choose to do the right thing or not - and are often > too scared to do much other than follow the herd. Leibniz made the > arguments of Escher and Hofstader long ago and we might think of a > world of logical possibility. Self seems only known in social context > and I fancy a better understanding of biology could be much more > useful than philosophy in helping us be aware of what is happening to > us as Don describes. I suspect we have lost control in leadership and > it's become nasty, bitchy (not much to do with the increased presence > of women) and lacking in that empathy that tells us to respect others > and only rarely over-ride their concerns. The mechanisms in this are > crude. > > On 23 July, 14:48, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > We do not choose to > > like or dislike something, it is a reaction to established values, > > imho. > > > This is true to a point. However, one can change one's opinion or > > have a seemingly incongruous opinion when it benefits the opiner. > > For instance, hypothetically, I choose to like my sister-in-law. > > Normally, I would never associate with or converse with or have > > business with this person but the fact that she is my son's aunt and > > loves him I tend to ignore the qualities about her I find > > objectionable. I am willing to help her when she needs it because she > > is family and to make this easier on me I find things about her I like > > and focus on these things. Quite honestly I wouldn't have gone > > through the effort if she wasn't my son's aunt. Hypothetically > > speaking. > > > Sometimes when under a great deal of stress I start to feel 'out of > > control' or 'helpless.' I recognize this and nip it in the bud. I > > take control, or the illusion of control, and mentally list my choices > > and make a decision. I'm under the most stress when I feel I don't > > know how to handle a situation. So I force myself to make a decision > > and go with it and change it up later if it looks like it's not > > working. Doing nothing makes it ten times as bad. Action, good or > > bad, is linked with control. IMO. Those that do nothing are not in > > control at all, they are at the mercy of those that act; good or bad. > > > dj > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:16 AM, deripsni<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I am not sure I would catagorize perception as controlled, but more > > > reactionary, similar to an opinion. To me, an opinion isn't contrived, > > > but is the result of variables, such as a comparison to established > > > moral values, preferred individual taste, etc. We do not choose to > > > like or dislike something, it is a reaction to established values, > > > imho. > > > > On Jul 23, 6:23 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > >> Mollay asks: > > > >> 'Do we have the power to create our realities? Are we in control? > > >> What do YOU think? > > > >> In many ways we do create our relalities, in the ways of how we > > >> percive things certianly. In realtion to how the world really is, > > >> maybe not so much. > > > >> If we each look at a tree in the park, it is the same tree that we > > >> stare at, even if our notice picks out things that others do not. So > > >> the tree is real, our perception of the tree may differ. > > > >> We do have the power of veto and I have long argued that this is the > > >> very basis of free will, so yes the fact that we can and do make > > >> descicions means we are in control. Think of it like a cars gears. > > > >> Those that drive automatics cut out the need to manualy depress and > > >> engage the clutch, the clutch is still engaged though, but the car > > >> does not yet drive itself. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
