Comments on the wisdom of the infinite by David Quinn

[Little Idiot]

Let me start by saying what a great piece of work the short book, available for free download, The Wisdom of the Infinite written by David Quinn is.

As a newbie on the forum I offer my apology in advance if the following has already been discussed. EDIT TO ADD; I just came across the debate between sam and DQ, (so much good stuff on the site to read!) I hope maybe I add a little to that as I am agreeing with Sams point on the conflict between causality and spirituality, but I also offer a solution where both causality and spiriuality co-exist.

I learned a great deal from his refreshing view. The best highlight for me as a physicist/philosopher being the application of causality to Quantum Physics, something I have long felt intuitively, but never seen expressed so simply.
However, like all human works it is short of perfection by seeming necessity SECOND EDIT; having read the Larkin dedate I see DQ claims enlightenment. I would be interested to know the view on degrees of enlightenment; is enlightenment all or nothing (therefore DQ has all, and presumably is beyond error and/or improvement?) or is it by degree, in which case DQ may accept the possibility of error, or the possibility of improvement.
The comments I make below are intended in a spirit of cooperation trying to move our collective understanding towards a clearer version of reality.

Ch1 The Eternal nature of cause and effect

DQ writes ‘It is thus irrational to think of cause and effect as being created in any way. It has always been around. There has never been a time when it was absent.’

Absolutely. Within space-time and our physical universe, cause and effect rules unchallenged, even in the realm of Quantum Physics.

But can we not conceive of timelessness; beyond time? (I do not mean to conceive the nature of it, just the logical possibility of it). To speak in metaphor and use time-references where they can not be used I am talking about ‘before’ the existence of our space-time universe, or ‘after’ the existence of our space-time universe if we apply, say, the ‘big crunch’ model where gravity pulls the universe back into a singularity.
We assume this possibility when we talk about the Big Bang, or any other ‘first cause’ model; what about ‘before’ the Big Bang event – there simply is no space-time; timelessness, Big Bang occurs and time starts, we can call this time t=0 and count on from there.

The principle of cause and effect can only apply in time, effect must by definition follow cause, there needs to be a passage of time, or at least the presence of time, then cause and effect can only have meaning in time, by definition.

While it is true that ‘There has never been a time when it (causality) was absent’ we can and do conceive of timelessness when time was absent by definition, and therefore causality was absent by definition.

DQ would have cause and effect rule without limit, I am suggesting that the reign of cause and effect is unchallenged within space-time and our physical universe, but we must accept that there are limits on the region where cause and effect rules. This is crucial to understand my main point, regarding free will.

First another example of where DQ’s position is different to my own, (actually it is the same example described in different words);

Ch1 Transcending God

DQ writes {for the sake of argument we assume God as creator to be true} ‘After all if the principle of cause and effect did not exist to begin with, then not even Almighty God himself could be the cause of the Universe. He would be utterly powerless and not much of a God, to say the least! This alone demonstrates that the principle cause and effect is more fundamental than God’

This is logically incorrect. The principle of cause and effect can only apply in time, effect must by definition follow cause, there needs to be a passage of time, and since space-time only exists after the creation of the universe, the principle of cause and effect can only be applicable after the beginning of the universe.

The Universe has to originate form beyond time, the ‘formless void’ which by its definition as beyond time – timeless must be beyond change and cause and effect.

If {for the sake of argument we assume God as creator to be true} then the creator must be beyond time, timeless, and therefore by definition such a God must be beyond the reach of cause and effect. It is therefore not true to say such a creator would be less fundamental than cause and effect, nor transcended by cause and effect because being out side time such a being is beyond the reach of cause and effect and in fact transcends cause and effect by merit of transcending time. Such a creator is more fundamental than time and therefore than cause and effect.

This is not to say I am supporting the idea of a ‘first cause’ a Big Bang or other type, on the contrary, there can be no first cause before time, as discussed cause and effect only applies within time. I support the idea of non-causality outside time and firmly only outside time, and causality (by which I mean cause and effect) in time, and firmly only inside time.

These two examples have been introduced to lead to my main point, in this post; free will. I agree with DQ that ‘Within space-time and our physical universe, cause and effect rules unchallenged.’ But I add that there are limits on this rule which we need to understand, as this has very important implications to us as spiritual aspirants.


Chapter 3 Free will

DQ writes ‘Here lies the essential irony of free will. On one hand, free will, as a process, needs the existence of causality in order for it to function. It needs causality because free will is a concept that refers to the mind willing or causing things to happen. And yet, at the same time, it is the sheer reality of causality which nullifies its existence. Thus the very conditions which are needed to support it are also the very conditions which erode all possibility of it existing. It therefore can not exist’

DQ concludes free will is only an appearance, with practical uses but essentially only an appearance. He later argues against ‘fate’ or what I would call fatalism; the idea that ‘if everything is already set in motion under the law of cause and effect then there is no need for me to take an action of make an effort, as all the future is effectively already determined.’

The latter rejection of fatalism is a perfectly reasonable position for a spiritual seeker, if we accept fatalism it crushes our capacity to change anything or to develop spiritually or ethically by our own efforts, everything is going to be what ever its causes determine regardless of my best efforts to cause any change and even if I make no effort the result will be the same. This situation runs counter to our common sense as spiritual seekers, makes a mockery of the possibility of a contribution to our own spiritual progress, renders impossible self improvement, and therefore DQ rightly rejects it based on ‘common sense’ as a spiritual seeker.

Yet, it is actually contrary to DQ’s own reasoning earlier in the chapter.
Either everything is causal, and fatalism is a logical result, or there must be a loophole in the law of causality. We can not accept a middle ground, simply put; either all is causal, or it is not. We cannot set up our reasoned argument that all is subject to cause and effect, without limit, then but then reject a part of the conclusion because it is clearly counter to our ‘common sense’. This suggests a flaw in one of two places, either faulty reasoning or faulty premise. I will refer to this point as the ‘apparent contradiction between DQ’s reasoning and his final position’

I suggest this situation is a result of DQ applying causality where it does not reign.
Causality applies to the physical world, fully. But in the mental world it does not apply fully. To prove my point I would need to show just a single example where causality does not apply, obviously, thereby proving it does not apply in all cases. The difficulty in such a proof is that not knowing the cause does not prove there is no cause, so I will have to create a contrived situation where we can use logic to do the task for us. In fact, my argument does not rest totally on the following logical proof being true this will be shown below, after my logical attempt (which is just as well, I never studied logic nor used it much, and I will not be surprised if the following is destroyed with disdain in the forum).

Consider being presented with three random but similar shapes drawn on paper, and being asked to freely pick one, the choice has neither significance nor connotation. Since the shapes are random they have no connection to any previous experience, since they are similar, if one happens by chance to look like an object I recognise, say my pet dog, they all will as they are similar. Since the choice has no relation to the previous events of my life, nor rest of my life there should be no reason to suggest a causal relation.
I know DQ would probably argue that the universe must have created the right conditions for me to have been present in the place to be offered the choice, that there are background conditions such as that I exist etc. However, the existence of me has already been met, and the conditions for me to be offered the choice have likewise been met before I actually consider the choice. While it is true that there are background conditions to me being presented with the choice, each can be related to the situation of me being able to make the choice, not to the decision I reach, not to my actual choice itself and our issue is simply is there a cause and effect relationship with the actual choice itself.
This is a contrived situation, and must be so in order to try counter the fact that we can never really be sure of the presence or otherwise of causal factors, because not knowing them does not prove they are absent.
However, logic can show there are no causes. A cause must be either a physical or mental (including emotion etc.) cause.
There is no future consequences to the choice of picture (the choice has neither significance nor connotation), no previous experience related to the choice (they are random shapes), no current influence on the choice (it’s a free choice) – no mental cause.
Also there are no physical factors related to the choice, it is not a physical event, it is a mental choice, any physical factors relate to me being offered the choice, not the actual making of the choice.
If there is no relation to past, present or future experience, no mental cause and no physical causes, what other could there be?
Therefore logically there are no causes to determine my choice.

We can produce several contrived examples and try use logic to show no causes to the actual choice itself. This proves that to some degree some of our mental reactions are free from cause and effect.
It does not run against the earlier statement ‘Within space-time and our physical universe, cause and effect rules unchallenged.’
This is not a physical situation, it is a mental one.

This allows us to resolve the ‘apparent contradiction between DQ’s reasoning and his final position’ outlined above. Therefore, even if logic sharper than my own was to prove the ‘logical proof’ above to be false by showing that in fact we can never remove any possibility of a causal relationship, then the case remains unproven. I still argue that if the case is unproven either way, it can not be proven that causality does apply. Then, because my position resolves a self-contradiction in DQ’s position it is therefore the more reasonable position of the two.

I suggest that the ‘apparent contradiction between DQ’s reasoning and his final position’ has arisen because DQ has applied causality to a mental situation where it does not fully apply, while still recognizing that it does apply; ‘within space-time and our physical universe, cause and effect rules unchallenged.’

This means, we can not exert total free will, but we can exert some degree of free will within our own mental reaction to events. This may seem trivial, due to an artificial distinction, on the part of the reader, between the internal mental realm and external physical things. However I shall attempt to make explicit the mechanism involved without any reference to mentalist philosophy.
Given a certain situation, what happens is not subject to my free will, it follows cause and effect from previous events. But how I react internally to what happens is subject to my free will. My reaction then becomes one of the causes of future events. Therefore the consequences of what happens are determined by cause and effect using my internal reaction to past events as one of the causes for future events. i.e. future events can be determined to some degree by my inner reaction to the situation.
In this model, there is room for total causal relations in the physical world of space-time, but also room for some freewill in our internal reaction, which is a requirement for the spiritual path and self-improvement essential to this path to have any real meaning.

Let us consider an example of applying this theory; DQ’s own example in punishing criminals, the case of the sage Diogenes catching the thief. When the thief pleads ‘it’s my fate to steal’, he is using fatalism to say he has no choice other than stealing. When the sage answers ‘then it is your fate to be beaten’ he is showing that the thief had the freedom to choose not to steal, and when he decided to steal he has set in motion the cause, now he will see the effect.
The thief was conditioned by his environment to be a thief, maybe he has no skill and no work, but he has children to feed, who amongst us can not imagine his situation and sympathise with the poor soul? However he does have the freedom to choose if he is going to steal or take another option, such as work, beg, sell property, salvage or make something to sell, etc.

We may feel overwhelming pressure to act in a certain way, but often (or always) there are alternatives and we make a choice even if that choice is only to bow to the factors pressurizing us towards a certain behaviour.
In the case of the thief, maybe the effect, a blow to the head from Diogenes’ staff, would then in time become the cause to make him fear capture and punishment so much that he selects another choice in the future. Maybe the Sages wise words would trigger his intuition and he would realise he has a choice in the matter.

In this way our mental freedom of control of our own reaction to an event can directly influence the future events. In the example choosing not to steal or choosing to steal is a mental choice with potentially very different physical consequences in the physical world. It clearly shows how in a very real and physical way how our thinking guides our actions which determines our experiences.

The thief can refuse to learn and spiritually progress, facing beating after beating as a result, probably bringing more sever punishments upon himself (almost as if experience were trying to teach him with increasingly sever lessons until he gets the point – but that is beyond today’s topic). Or he can learn the hard way, after enough beatings he finally decides to try another option. Or he can learn the easy way by choosing to try to avoid the stealing which his own experience or reasoning teaches him will probably have undesirable results.

In this context we can see the Sages actions have correct interpretations at several levels;
1. Simple cause and effect (karma) by his own foolish actions (cause) the thief earned his reward, a sharp blow to the head (effect).
2. As part of the hard way of learning, if the Sage did not beat the thief he may be encouraged to steal again, as his experience is that crime does pay, possibly ending up with a more sever punishment.
3. As part of the easy way of learning, if the thief understands the sage he will realise that he is not fated to steal, and may choose to stop, thereby avoiding unnecessary suffering and progressing spiritually, the later being main objective of a Sages actions and words.

Light and Peace
Little Idiot

[Anders Schlander]

suggest this situation is a result of DQ applying causality where it does not reign.
Causality applies to the physical world, fully. But in the mental world it does not apply fully. To prove my point I would need to show just a single example where causality does not apply, obviously, thereby proving it does not apply in all cases. The difficulty in such a proof is that not knowing the cause does not prove there is no cause, so I will have to create a contrived situation where we can use logic to do the task for us. In fact, my argument does not rest totally on the following logical proof being true this will be shown below, after my logical attempt (which is just as well, I never studied logic nor used it much, and I will not be surprised if the following is destroyed with disdain in the forum).

Consider being presented with three random but similar shapes drawn on paper, and being asked to freely pick one, the choice has neither significance nor connotation. Since the shapes are random they have no connection to any previous experience, since they are similar, if one happens by chance to look like an object I recognise, say my pet dog, they all will as they are similar. Since the choice has no relation to the previous events of my life, nor rest of my life there should be no reason to suggest a causal relation.
I know DQ would probably argue that the universe must have created the right conditions for me to have been present in the place to be offered the choice, that there are background conditions such as that I exist etc. However, the existence of me has already been met, and the conditions for me to be offered the choice have likewise been met before I actually consider the choice. While it is true that there are background conditions to me being presented with the choice, each can be related to the situation of me being able to make the choice, not to the decision I reach, not to my actual choice itself and our issue is simply is there a cause and effect relationship with the actual choice itself.
This is a contrived situation, and must be so in order to try counter the fact that we can never really be sure of the presence or otherwise of causal factors, because not knowing them does not prove they are absent.
However, logic can show there are no causes. A cause must be either a physical or mental (including emotion etc.) cause.
There is no future consequences to the choice of picture (the choice has neither significance nor connotation), no previous experience related to the choice (they are random shapes), no current influence on the choice (it’s a free choice) – no mental cause.
Also there are no physical factors related to the choice, it is not a physical event, it is a mental choice, any physical factors relate to me being offered the choice, not the actual making of the choice.
If there is no relation to past, present or future experience, no mental cause and no physical causes, what other could there be?
Therefore logically there are no causes to determine my choice.

3 'random' bits of paper are really just 3 bits of paper where, whoever was tasked to put shapes on the paper, thought of a certain seemingly un-connecting entity, like a horse.

Say you are in an exam room. You're tasked to choose one paper out of 30. their number corresponding to the certain exam is on the side facing down on the floor. Only 3 papers have the number you want. You 'randomly' pick one out, but a choice is made. a mental choice is made to take either the closest, since it's most effortless, or the one near it, because it looks more secluded from the rest, and thus, perhaps, a 'rare gem' in the mix. But you make a mental choice to pick either.

the point is that a choice is neccesarily based on a cause, because in order to single one of the 30 ones out, there must be a mental process that eliminates the 29 others, even if you consciously try and mask your choice as 'the most random' that is a choice aswell.

Same applies to that not even nothingness can rightfully exist without consciousness(from the book you're mentioning, Quinn makes that point), and it's true because absolute nothingness is also a perception that there is an absence of something we previously contrasted it with. A random pattern, or a choice to make a random choice is still nontheless a made choice. Like, if you're painting a picture and you are making the uttermost random picture, not even a random picture is possible if you spread out dots of colour all over, mixing all the colours up, since it's going to end up a roughly evenly dotted Canvas. If you mix it up, throw in more heavily densed areas, youve made a pattern with a heavily densed area, and otherwise roughly spaced out dots everywhere.

Just because the bits of paper hold no appearent differences between them on which to value them, you mentally can construct values on how to pick one instead of the other. Most likely one will think there is no real way to pick one over the other, and simply by the act of looking through the bits of paper, focusing consciousness on one bit of paper, you can make a choice. But there is causes to this, since you're deliberately narowing down on one paper, and focusing on that in order to make a choice, a paper is as good as any, but you can only pick one. The others must be taken out of the equation.

[Jehu]

Reason tells us that there can arise no effect without a cause, for that which is able to arise without a cause must needs already have arisen; there being no cause why it should arise later rather than sooner. Further, this same argument holds for all possible times in the past, an thus it is logically untenable to assert that there is anything that can or did arise without a cause.

It is also true that no effect can arise solely from a single cause, for an effect must be either identical to its cause, or different; there being no intermediate alternative. In the case where an effect were identical to it cause, there would be no basis upon which to assert that an effect had newly arisen, while if an effect differed from its cause, then this difference would not be accounted for in the single cause, and therefore, must have another cause.

Therefore, given that there could have been no less that two causes present when the Universe came into being, it follows that this event could not have originated in a singularity, as the so called “Big Bang Theory” implies. What’s more, given that the creation of the Universe was contingent upon the coming together of these originating causes, it follows that there must have been a time antecedent the creation, wherein these originating causes were first separate, and then came into contact.

Now, this does not preclude the existence of a “first cause”, but means only that this first cause must needs have always existed, for it could not possibly have come into being, were there a time when it did not exist.

[Little Idiot]

the point is that a choice is neccesarily based on a cause, because in order to single one of the 30 ones out, there must be a mental process that eliminates the 29 others, even if you consciously try and mask your choice as 'the most random' that is a choice aswell.

Just because the bits of paper hold no appearent differences between them on which to value them, you mentally can construct values on how to pick one instead of the other. Most likely one will think there is no real way to pick one over the other, and simply by the act of looking through the bits of paper, focusing consciousness on one bit of paper, you can make a choice. But there is causes to this, since you're deliberately narowing down on one paper, and focusing on that in order to make a choice, a paper is as good as any, but you can only pick one. The others must be taken out of the equation.

Hi Anders, thanks for the reply.

I agree with you that a choice is made, obviously.
What I am unsure on is the part (my bold) where you say a 'choice is neccesarily based on a cause' can you elaborate on why that is?
I know that is what DQ thinks, and so probably what a lot of people here think too. I know it may be right too, who am I to say otherwise with certainty. But that is the point of my original post; in order for there to be free will (which is required for any spiritual path) there must be the posibility of choice without cause.
The second bold 'simply by the act of looking through the bits of paper, focusing consciousness on one bit of paper, you can make a choice' is not actually counter to my point. I agree that we choose, I am not convinced the choice falls fully under cause and effect. I dont dispute that by simply focussing my consciousness on one I can make a choice, but my point is, what is the cause of me focussing on one rather than another? cant it just be where ever my 'eye of attention' falls?, and my attention jumps around by its nature. So why do I have to be 'caused' to make a particular choice over any other one?

[Little Idiot]

Reason tells us that there can arise no effect without a cause, for that which is able to arise without a cause must needs already have arisen; there being no cause why it should arise later rather than sooner. Further, this same argument holds for all possible times in the past, an thus it is logically untenable to assert that there is anything that can or did arise without a cause.

Hi Jehu, thanks for the reply.

Indeed, reason does tell us this as you say.
However, does not reason also tell us there must not be total fatalism if there is to be a spiritual path? Because every spiritual path includes a long path of self improvement through self effort, if there is no free will then my effort is meaningless therefore the long path is meaningless, therefore there is no self improvement, no spiritual path. Does not reason and experience tell us there is a spiritual path?

Therfore does not reason tell us there could be a limit on the reign of cause and effect, and that there must be such a limit, otherwise we are presented with paradox: Given that there is a spiritual path there must be some free will, given absolute cause and effect there is no free will. Therefore either
1. free will has a limit, such as that I propose in my OP, or
2. there is no spiritual path

[Animus]

The objections quoted by David Quinn and reiterated by Little Idiot to the conclusion of fatalism are based on an appeal to the consequences of belief and are thus flawed. If a bomb explodes in Paris destroying the Eiffel Tower, the consequences of a 'belief' in that reality, as opposed to a rejection of that reality are irrelevant to the truth-value of "Did a bomb explode in Paris destroying the Eiffel Tower?". Either the event did occur or it didn't and the consequences of believing in it are divorced from the truth or falsity of the belief.

A choice itself necessarily obeys cause-effect, to illustrate this consider the world "deliberate". The latin root "liber" means "to free", to "de-liber-ate" means to take a seemingly free range of options and narrowing them down to just one. This process is causal, although we are initially presented with several possible courses of actions, internal causes (intuition, emotion, reason, etc...) eliminates various possibilities until one remains, or one of these motives provides significant force to quickly make salient one option (thin-slicing).

[Little Idiot]

The objections quoted by David Quinn and reiterated by Little Idiot to the conclusion of fatalism are based on an appeal to the consequences of belief and are thus flawed. If a bomb explodes in Paris destroying the Eiffel Tower, the consequences of a 'belief' in that reality, as opposed to a rejection of that reality are irrelevant to the truth-value of "Did a bomb explode in Paris destroying the Eiffel Tower?". Either the event did occur or it didn't and the consequences of believing in it are divorced from the truth or falsity of the belief.

You can say the method of appeal to belief alone is flawed, I agree. But you can not say a method is flawed because it includes belief as a part of its argument. Particularly when that belief is backed up by both reason and experience.
Clearly, in the bomb example physical reality obliterates the belief.
Clearly, in my life (and others I am sure) experience obliterates the idea of there not being a spiritual path. Therefore I use reason based on the experience/belief that there is a spiritual path to demonstrate the requirement for free will at least in my internal choice.

If you wish to argue there is no spiritual path, we will have a fun discussion - do you wish to assert that there is no spiritual path?

Assuming you agree that there is a spiritual path, then I disregard belief and base my argument on reason alone. Belief only complements experience in establishing my premise that there is a spiritual path, it plays no additional role.

A choice itself necessarily obeys cause-effect, to illustrate this consider the world "deliberate". The latin root "liber" means "to free", to "de-liber-ate" means to take a seemingly free range of options and narrowing them down to just one. This process is causal, although we are initially presented with several possible courses of actions, internal causes (intuition, emotion, reason, etc...) eliminates various possibilities until one remains, or one of these motives provides significant force to quickly make salient one option (thin-slicing).

Linguistic analysis is almost useless to establish metaphysical truth. To assert otherwise is to assume the originator of the word had infinite wisdom and is beyond error.
Therefore the para above is little more than a re-assertion of that very point I am calling into question in my original post, that choice is causal, but with out any actual substance to it to support the re-assertion.
No offence intended. I defend my idea by attacking your counter-point, I do not attack you.

[Jehu]

Indeed, reason does tell us this as you say.
However, does not reason also tell us there must not be total fatalism if there is to be a spiritual path? Because every spiritual path includes a long path of self improvement through self effort, if there is no free will then my effort is meaningless therefore the long path is meaningless, therefore there is no self improvement, no spiritual path. Does not reason and experience tell us there is a spiritual path?

First, with respect to the limits of cause and effect, given that every effect is dependent upon the contingence (coming together) of at least two pre-existent causes, and given that this contingence entails some sort of motion, it follows that every effect is dependent upon there being Space - wherein this motion can take place. For this reason, it may be said that Space is that which delimits cause and effect, and this is evidenced by the fact that there is a limit to the speed at which causes can move about within Space. Further, the laws of conservation tell us that the overall quantity of mass, energy and motion within Space is fixed (finite), but given the dynamic nature of these three interdependent elements, it follows that the flow of cause and effect is infinite; and it is this continuous and indefinite flow of cause and effect which, to the sentient mind, gives the appearance of the passage of Time.

Then, concerning free will and the spiritual path, I disagree with your contention that a true spiritual path entails self-improvement through self-effort, for the true self is in need of no improvement. Rather, the true spiritual path is one which entails ridding ones mind of erroneous ideas regarding the nature of reality, and as a natural consequence, the falling away of one’s attachment to worldly things – including one’s own ego-personality. Further, such a path is never accomplished by force of one’s own ego-personality, but only by submitting to the will of one’s True Self; for it is only the True Self , because it is self-caused, that is possessed of a free will. All else is subject to cause and effect.

[Animus]

I don't remember seeing any rational arguments for Free-Will here or anywhere else. Even you speak of 'reasons' for your beliefs, would it not suffice to call these 'causes'?

There is a 'spiritual' path, sure, but that path involves accepting what is. It happens that what is, is often rather obvious and its only our desires that generate the delusions which blind us.

E.g. I have no desire for free-will, so I don't think up ways to subvert axioms like causation, particularly as they apply to the mind. Granted these axioms break down with all other axioms at the event of a formless, timeless, singularity, but the content of our minds are not of this nature. It is the nature of our minds to produce forms, time and everything else dual.

Even in this way the notions of "Free-Will" and I suppose "Not Free-Will" are two sides of the same dualistic notion generated by our minds.

Supposing there was a nomologically inconsistent singularity in my head from which all things originate and acquire form, "I" am just a simulation of this singularity. The whole notion of "Me" having anything is flawed on the basis that "I" am just an illustration. Part of a self-model process of subjectivity.

So, even in the event that there is such a thing as a formless, timeless, singularity from whence all arose, and that found its home with my mind, "I" am not the owner or the doer of it. It owns me, and does me.

The objections quoted by David Quinn and reiterated by Little Idiot to the conclusion of fatalism are based on an appeal to the consequences of belief and are thus flawed. If a bomb explodes in Paris destroying the Eiffel Tower, the consequences of a 'belief' in that reality, as opposed to a rejection of that reality are irrelevant to the truth-value of "Did a bomb explode in Paris destroying the Eiffel Tower?". Either the event did occur or it didn't and the consequences of believing in it are divorced from the truth or falsity of the belief.

You can say the method of appeal to belief alone is flawed, I agree. But you can not say a method is flawed because it includes belief as a part of its argument. Particularly when that belief is backed up by both reason and experience.
Clearly, in the bomb example physical reality obliterates the belief.
Clearly, in my life (and others I am sure) experience obliterates the idea of there not being a spiritual path. Therefore I use reason based on the experience/belief that there is a spiritual path to demonstrate the requirement for free will at least in my internal choice.

If you wish to argue there is no spiritual path, we will have a fun discussion - do you wish to assert that there is no spiritual path?

Assuming you agree that there is a spiritual path, then I disregard belief and base my argument on reason alone. Belief only complements experience in establishing my premise that there is a spiritual path, it plays no additional role.

A choice itself necessarily obeys cause-effect, to illustrate this consider the world "deliberate". The latin root "liber" means "to free", to "de-liber-ate" means to take a seemingly free range of options and narrowing them down to just one. This process is causal, although we are initially presented with several possible courses of actions, internal causes (intuition, emotion, reason, etc...) eliminates various possibilities until one remains, or one of these motives provides significant force to quickly make salient one option (thin-slicing).

Linguistic analysis is almost useless to establish metaphysical truth. To assert otherwise is to assume the originator of the word had infinite wisdom and is beyond error.
Therefore the para above is little more than a re-assertion of that very point I am calling into question in my original post, that choice is causal, but with out any actual substance to it to support the re-assertion.
No offence intended. I defend my idea by attacking your counter-point, I do not attack you.

[Little Idiot]

Indeed, reason does tell us this as you say.
However, does not reason also tell us there must not be total fatalism if there is to be a spiritual path? Because every spiritual path includes a long path of self improvement through self effort, if there is no free will then my effort is meaningless therefore the long path is meaningless, therefore there is no self improvement, no spiritual path. Does not reason and experience tell us there is a spiritual path?

First, with respect to the limits of cause and effect, given that every effect is dependent upon the contingence (coming together) of at least two pre-existent causes, and given that this contingence entails some sort of motion, it follows that every effect is dependent upon there being Space - wherein this motion can take place. For this reason, it may be said that Space is that which delimits cause and effect, and this is evidenced by the fact that there is a limit to the speed at which causes can move about within Space. Further, the laws of conservation tell us that the overall quantity of mass, energy and motion within Space is fixed (finite), but given the dynamic nature of these three interdependent elements, it follows that the flow of cause and effect is infinite; and it is this continuous and indefinite flow of cause and effect which, to the sentient mind, gives the appearance of the passage of Time.

I think I understand your point; all physical things depend on space, and I agree. But the internal workings of my mind do not depend on space. My mind creates my perception of space, it is far more accurate to say space depends on my mind than it is to say my mind depends on space. Just so with time - my consciousness creates space and time (space-time), therefore they depend on it, not it depends on them. Would you agree?

Then, concerning free will and the spiritual path, I disagree with your contention that a true spiritual path entails self-improvement through self-effort, for the true self is in need of no improvement. Rather, the true spiritual path is one which entails ridding ones mind of erroneous ideas regarding the nature of reality, and as a natural consequence, the falling away of one’s attachment to worldly things – including one’s own ego-personality. Further, such a path is never accomplished by force of one’s own ego-personality, but only by submitting to the will of one’s True Self; for it is only the True Self , because it is self-caused, that is possessed of a free will. All else is subject to cause and effect.

I agree the true self needs no improvement, but I think your error comes from not recognizing that the spiritual path is for the improvemnet and ultimate subjugation of the ego. Where are the errors to be gotten rid of? obviously not in the true self, only the ego can have errors.
I agree with your description that loosing attachment to worldly things including the ego is the spiritual goal, I agree that it only is completed by submission to the higher power and that this is passive, not by self effort of the ego. But I differ on the one point, that prior to the act of submission all improvement is an improvement of the ego by the effort of the ego (obviously with the co-operation of the higher self). I argue for this because the higher self is already perect and in knowledge of Truth, it needs no improvement or realization. The ego is the imperfect and the only one able to improve.

[Little Idiot]

I don't remember seeing any rational arguments for Free-Will here or anywhere else.

this is actually what I am talking about. DQ argues reasonably against free will, but then (IMO)contradicts himself by belief in spiritual path and improvement without a reasoned justification for why. I am attempting to insert a reasoned justification for why, or at least point out the need for such a reasoned justification of limited but none-zero freewill.

Even you speak of 'reasons' for your beliefs, would it not suffice to call these 'causes'?

Yes, my belief has causes. but its my internal reaction that I argue is above cause and effect, not my belief. I am not saying cause and effect is not a good doctrine every where else.

There is a 'spiritual' path, sure, but that path involves accepting what is. It happens that what is, is often rather obvious and its only our desires that generate the delusions which blind us.

I agree there is a spiritual path, and the short path is just accepting what is. But the long path is a self-improvement of the ego by the effort of the ego. The existance of the long path does not invalidate the long path. Although some short path only methods exist (e.g. Zen) they are not always successful as they miss the contribution of the long path. A true teaching is that both long and short path is needed - let me try justify this in a concise way. If as the short path correctly teaches all is illusion, including the world, the ego and therefore morals, this means the ordinary man is taught that good is no better than evil. He will therefore stray into evil and bring disaster on himself and his society. This alone proves the long path is required.
Only the man who is ready should be taught that ultimately good is no better than evil because his more pure personality will stop him slipping into sin before his greater wisdom shows that while it is ultimately true that good is no better than evil, it is also a practical truth that good is better than evil. We need a dual perspective to correctly see both sides of the truth - the ultimate along side the practical.

E.g. I have no desire for free-will, so I don't think up ways to subvert axioms like causation, particularly as they apply to the mind. Granted these axioms break down with all other axioms at the event of a formless, timeless, singularity, but the content of our minds are not of this nature. It is the nature of our minds to produce forms, time and everything else dual.

Subvert? I am looking for truth, not subverting axioms.

Even in this way the notions of "Free-Will" and I suppose "Not Free-Will" are two sides of the same dualistic notion generated by our minds.

Supposing there was a nomologically inconsistent singularity in my head from which all things originate and acquire form, "I" am just a simulation of this singularity. The whole notion of "Me" having anything is flawed on the basis that "I" am just an illustration. Part of a self-model process of subjectivity.

So, even in the event that there is such a thing as a formless, timeless, singularity from whence all arose, and that found its home with my mind, "I" am not the owner or the doer of it. It owns me, and does me.

I like your final para here - this is the witness-self.

I think you are speculating very well in the section above. This is IMO the exact reality of the human situation. The higher self is a timeless spaceless 'God in me'. My consciousness does originate or emanate from a timeless source, as we can verify in Nirvikalpa. Although our ego does not know this, and its tyranny is to trick us into believing we are it not That. And, ultimately this may be why we have free will in our reaction to environment.

In your speculation here you have raised my discussion a level, I say that we have free will in our reaction which then infulences (as one causal factor) our experience, you have actually just shown the how we have free will in this way.

[Animus]

I don't remember seeing any rational arguments for Free-Will here or anywhere else.

this is actually what I am talking about. DQ argues reasonably against free will, but then (IMO)contradicts himself by belief in spiritual path and improvement without a reasoned justification for why. I am attempting to insert a reasoned justification for why, or at least point out the need for such a reasoned justification of limited but none-zero freewill.

Ok, but there are other reasons, such as the fact that I have causes/motives and thus actions arise. In my experiences I see that suffering arises from delusions, and thus eliminating delusions will reduce my suffering. It is ironic that in the pursuit of knowledge (the spiritual path) we begin with a strong egoic motive (to know) and what we learn is that the ego is an illusion. Once we learn this we can use this knowledge to improve ourselves (ego) along this path. It seems paradoxical, but surely it is not.

Even you speak of 'reasons' for your beliefs, would it not suffice to call these 'causes'?

Yes, my belief has causes. but its my internal reaction that I argue is above cause and effect, not my belief. I am not saying cause and effect is not a good doctrine every where else.

There is a 'spiritual' path, sure, but that path involves accepting what is. It happens that what is, is often rather obvious and its only our desires that generate the delusions which blind us.

I agree there is a spiritual path, and the short path is just accepting what is. But the long path is a self-improvement of the ego by the effort of the ego. The existance of the long path does not invalidate the long path. Although some short path only methods exist (e.g. Zen) they are not always successful as they miss the contribution of the long path. A true teaching is that both long and short path is needed - let me try justify this in a concise way. If as the short path correctly teaches all is illusion, including the world, the ego and therefore morals, this means the ordinary man is taught that good is no better than evil. He will therefore stray into evil and bring disaster on himself and his society. This alone proves the long path is required.
Only the man who is ready should be taught that ultimately good is no better than evil because his more pure personality will stop him slipping into sin before his greater wisdom shows that while it is ultimately true that good is no better than evil, it is also a practical truth that good is better than evil. We need a dual perspective to correctly see both sides of the truth - the ultimate along side the practical.

E.g. I have no desire for free-will, so I don't think up ways to subvert axioms like causation, particularly as they apply to the mind. Granted these axioms break down with all other axioms at the event of a formless, timeless, singularity, but the content of our minds are not of this nature. It is the nature of our minds to produce forms, time and everything else dual.

Subvert? I am looking for truth, not subverting axioms.

Even in this way the notions of "Free-Will" and I suppose "Not Free-Will" are two sides of the same dualistic notion generated by our minds.

Supposing there was a nomologically inconsistent singularity in my head from which all things originate and acquire form, "I" am just a simulation of this singularity. The whole notion of "Me" having anything is flawed on the basis that "I" am just an illustration. Part of a self-model process of subjectivity.

So, even in the event that there is such a thing as a formless, timeless, singularity from whence all arose, and that found its home with my mind, "I" am not the owner or the doer of it. It owns me, and does me.

I like your final para here - this is the witness-self.

I think you are speculating very well in the section above. This is IMO the exact reality of the human situation. The higher self is a timeless spaceless 'God in me'. My consciousness does originate or emanate from a timeless source, as we can verify in Nirvikalpa. Although our ego does not know this, and its tyranny is to trick us into believing we are it not That. And, ultimately this may be why we have free will in our reaction to environment.

In your speculation here you have raised my discussion a level, I say that we have free will in our reaction which then infulences (as one causal factor) our experience, you have actually just shown the how we have free will in this way.

Ok, So lets say that the formless, timeless, undifferentiated, singularity, which could properly be called "Free" exists and antecedes my mind, is the very basis of my mind, and from that this notion of "I" arises. It is still the case that "I" am not the possessor of this freedom. The possesser of all things, including myself, would be Brahman, Dao, God, Nature, etc..

[Little Idiot]

I don't remember seeing any rational arguments for Free-Will here or anywhere else.

this is actually what I am talking about. DQ argues reasonably against free will, but then (IMO)contradicts himself by belief in spiritual path and improvement without a reasoned justification for why. I am attempting to insert a reasoned justification for why, or at least point out the need for such a reasoned justification of limited but none-zero freewill.

Ok, but there are other reasons, such as the fact that I have causes/motives and thus actions arise. In my experiences I see that suffering arises from delusions, and thus eliminating delusions will reduce my suffering. It is ironic that in the pursuit of knowledge (the spiritual path) we begin with a strong egoic motive (to know) and what we learn is that the ego is an illusion. Once we learn this we can use this knowledge to improve ourselves (ego) along this path. It seems paradoxical, but surely it is not.

I think the long path of ego-improvement is never ending in itself. The short path of ego surrender is the end of the long path. This is why it seems contradictory; we improve (long path) so as to be able to surrender (short path) and both seem like contradictory goals, but in fact it is a synthesis not a contradiction. This is how I understand the 'seeming paradox' you refer to.

Even you speak of 'reasons' for your beliefs, would it not suffice to call these 'causes'?

Yes, my belief has causes. but its my internal reaction that I argue is above cause and effect, not my belief. I am not saying cause and effect is not a good doctrine every where else.

There is a 'spiritual' path, sure, but that path involves accepting what is. It happens that what is, is often rather obvious and its only our desires that generate the delusions which blind us.

I agree there is a spiritual path, and the short path is just accepting what is. But the long path is a self-improvement of the ego by the effort of the ego. The existance of the long path does not invalidate the long path. Although some short path only methods exist (e.g. Zen) they are not always successful as they miss the contribution of the long path. A true teaching is that both long and short path is needed - let me try justify this in a concise way. If as the short path correctly teaches all is illusion, including the world, the ego and therefore morals, this means the ordinary man is taught that good is no better than evil. He will therefore stray into evil and bring disaster on himself and his society. This alone proves the long path is required.
Only the man who is ready should be taught that ultimately good is no better than evil because his more pure personality will stop him slipping into sin before his greater wisdom shows that while it is ultimately true that good is no better than evil, it is also a practical truth that good is better than evil. We need a dual perspective to correctly see both sides of the truth - the ultimate along side the practical.

E.g. I have no desire for free-will, so I don't think up ways to subvert axioms like causation, particularly as they apply to the mind. Granted these axioms break down with all other axioms at the event of a formless, timeless, singularity, but the content of our minds are not of this nature. It is the nature of our minds to produce forms, time and everything else dual.

Subvert? I am looking for truth, not subverting axioms.

Even in this way the notions of "Free-Will" and I suppose "Not Free-Will" are two sides of the same dualistic notion generated by our minds.

Supposing there was a nomologically inconsistent singularity in my head from which all things originate and acquire form, "I" am just a simulation of this singularity. The whole notion of "Me" having anything is flawed on the basis that "I" am just an illustration. Part of a self-model process of subjectivity.

So, even in the event that there is such a thing as a formless, timeless, singularity from whence all arose, and that found its home with my mind, "I" am not the owner or the doer of it. It owns me, and does me.

I like your final para here - this is the witness-self.

I think you are speculating very well in the section above. This is IMO the exact reality of the human situation. The higher self is a timeless spaceless 'God in me'. My consciousness does originate or emanate from a timeless source, as we can verify in Nirvikalpa. Although our ego does not know this, and its tyranny is to trick us into believing we are it not That. And, ultimately this may be why we have free will in our reaction to environment.

In your speculation here you have raised my discussion a level, I say that we have free will in our reaction which then infulences (as one causal factor) our experience, you have actually just shown the how we have free will in this way.

Ok, So lets say that the formless, timeless, undifferentiated, singularity, which could properly be called "Free" exists and antecedes my mind, is the very basis of my mind, and from that this notion of "I" arises. It is still the case that "I" am not the possessor of this freedom. The possesser of all things, including myself, would be Brahman, Dao, God, Nature, etc..

I am sure we would all agree that the higher self/reality would be free, if anything can be free. I would certainly not wish to try argue against that. Although we would maybe say the higher self chooses to align with Dao or chooses to submit to God we would I believe agree it is a free choice to submit/align.

However I am arguing for a similar freedom of the ego to choose to align with Dao (or choose ot sumbit to God) which implies the choice not to align is available. In this model the spiritual path is trying to know what to choose and trying to choose it, ignorance is not knowing or knowing and not choosing to align with Dao (submit too God). My point being the ego is free to choose, and must be, or the spiritual path has no meaning.

[Jehu]

If a person is suffering from a mental disorder, and is labouring under the delusion that anyone wearing a hat is going to murder them, can we assert that such a person if free to chose their actions? Likewise, so long as person clings to the belief that they are identical with their ego-personality, there can be no freedom. It is not the ego-personality that chooses to walk the spiritual path- accept perhaps as a means of aggrandizement; but one’s true self – which is already free. When the ego-personality has sufficiently receded, then the true self will naturally assert its will, and only then is there freedom.

[Little Idiot]

If a person is suffering from a mental disorder, and is labouring under the delusion that anyone wearing a hat is going to murder them, can we assert that such a person if free to chose their actions? Likewise, so long as person clings to the belief that they are identical with their ego-personality, there can be no freedom. It is not the ego-personality that chooses to walk the spiritual path- accept perhaps as a means of aggrandizement; but one’s true self – which is already free. When the ego-personality has sufficiently receded, then the true self will naturally assert its will, and only then is there freedom.

In this model Jehu you seem to suggest the true self is in need of improvement;
do you view the true self as already perfect and not in need of improvement already God-realized and therefore not in need of enlightenment (as I do)
or do you view the true self as higher than the ego but still able ot improve?

If you agree with me, that it is already perfect, then why does the higher self need to choose a spiritual path? Only the ego can improve, therefore only the ego needs a spiritual path, therefore only the ego is able to choose not to adopt the spiritual path (the true self can not choose ignorance, it is already God-realized) and so only the ego can choose the spiritual path. I say the choice is a choice of the ego, not the true self.

regarding your first point about the mental case, I do not say any of us actually have total free will to chose our actions - the actions are often better thought of as reactions under cause and effect.
We have free will in our inner mental reaction to a situation. While it is true that this will affect our future actions and it is one of several causes to the physical environment at a future time, so in this way we can control our actions.
To answer the question then, the mental patient is under exactly the same free-will situation as any other. His distorted world view will influence his reaction just as any other distorted world view does. This applies to all non-enlighteded world views, the mental patient is an extriem example, but not an exception to the rule. This is why only the Sage knows the idea way to react in any situation. The best others can do is try follow the examples of the Sage; react with a submissive ego, make a full effort to succeed then relax and 'leave it with God'

[Diebert van Rhijn]

... while it is ultimately true that good is no better than evil, it is also a practical truth that good is better than evil. We need a dual perspective to correctly see both sides of the truth - the ultimate along side the practical.

It's a tempting thought but would lead to the conclusion that whatever is "ultimate" is not practical and therefore irrelevant, a dream, a fantasy to engage in.

It's not logical to state good is better than evil. This is because good is by definition: that what's conceived as better. It's not some inherent thing like "the good". Someone who loves evil is therefore a contradiction or living a lie: someone like that just has defined "good" differently but doesn't have the guts to call it out, perhaps out of shame or fear. Or he just likes to confuse terms for the kick.

There's still truth in the general gist of your argument though. To have a morality, to divide things between good and evil, desired and undesired, functional and dysfunctional is indeed practical and necessarily for life and mind to exist. The reason why it could be said that ultimately good and evil are sides of whatever coinage, a non-dual perspective, is the wise understanding that by any desire the undesired is fueled, by creating function, the dysfunctional rises and by taking the side of the good, the evil shadows are fed.

So one can act as if something exists while knowing it constitutes a play of shadows at the same time. This has some practical consequences though like non-attachment and clarity of thought: one stops acting out of attachment, anxiety or confusion about the nature of all things and with that one stops perpetuating it. And one is always perpetuating something in oneself and the environment one participates in.

[Jehu]

In this model Jehu you seem to suggest the true self is in need of improvement; do you view the true self as already perfect and not in need of improvement already God-realized and therefore not in need of enlightenment (as I do) or do you view the true self as higher than the ego but still able ot improve?

If you agree with me, that it is already perfect, then why does the higher self need to choose a spiritual path? Only the ego can improve, therefore only the ego needs a spiritual path, therefore only the ego is able to choose not to adopt the spiritual path (the true self can not choose ignorance, it is already God-realized) and so only the ego can choose the spiritual path. I say the choice is a choice of the ego, not the true self.

As an absolute idealist, I draw no distinction between the true nature (self) of the sentient being, and the nature of Being (God) itself; for me they are one and the same (identical). Thus, if the nature of Being is necessarily perfect, that is to say, possessed of that which is necessary and sufficient to its being, then so too is the true nature of the sentient being perfect. The ego-personality, on the other hand, given that it is not the true self (real origin and cause) of the sentient being, is necessarily imperfect, for it dwells within the field of time, and is subject to the law of cause and effect. For this reason, the ego-personality’s actions (or, more correctly, “reactions”) are heavily conditioned by it preferences and by inductive inferences drawn from previous experiences. Further, it is the nature of the ego-personality to act always in its own self-interest, even though it may appear to have altruistic motives. This is hardly surprising when one considers that the function of the ego-personality is to ensure our survival in the relative world.

The call to awaken comes not from the ego-personality (apparent self), but from one’s true self, which although confused by erroneous thoughts and concepts, retains some awareness of its true nature. This is analogous to the dream state, wherein the dream-personality, however convinced it may be of its own reality, or the reality of the world in which it finds itself, may still awaken to the knowledge that it is all a dream. Such awakenings generally occur because the dream has taken on an unpleasant or nightmarish quality, and this is usually sufficient to arouse the dreamer. It is much the same in the relative world, for it is suffering that generally gives rise to the notion that things may not be as they seem, and sets one upon the path of enquiry.

[Little Idiot]

... while it is ultimately true that good is no better than evil, it is also a practical truth that good is better than evil. We need a dual perspective to correctly see both sides of the truth - the ultimate along side the practical.

It's a tempting thought but would lead to the conclusion that whatever is "ultimate" is not practical and therefore irrelevant, a dream, a fantasy to engage in.

I would raise an eyebrow at the point of the pratical being more relevant than the ultimate.

It's not logical to state good is better than evil. This is because good is by definition: that what's conceived as better. It's not some inherent thing like "the good". Someone who loves evil is therefore a contradiction or living a lie: someone like that just has defined "good" differently but doesn't have the guts to call it out, perhaps out of shame or fear. Or he just likes to confuse terms for the kick.

There's still truth in the general gist of your argument though. To have a morality, to divide things between good and evil, desired and undesired, functional and dysfunctional is indeed practical and necessarily for life and mind to exist. The reason why it could be said that ultimately good and evil are sides of whatever coinage, a non-dual perspective, is the wise understanding that by any desire the undesired is fueled, by creating function, the dysfunctional rises and by taking the side of the good, the evil shadows are fed.

Exactly. when I say good is no better than evil I mean ultimatly, not practically.

So one can act as if something exists while knowing it constitutes a play of shadows at the same time. This has some practical consequences though like non-attachment and clarity of thought: one stops acting out of attachment, anxiety or confusion about the nature of all things and with that one stops perpetuating it. And one is always perpetuating something in oneself and the environment one participates in.

yes, thats it.

[Little Idiot]

In this model Jehu you seem to suggest the true self is in need of improvement; do you view the true self as already perfect and not in need of improvement already God-realized and therefore not in need of enlightenment (as I do) or do you view the true self as higher than the ego but still able ot improve?

If you agree with me, that it is already perfect, then why does the higher self need to choose a spiritual path? Only the ego can improve, therefore only the ego needs a spiritual path, therefore only the ego is able to choose not to adopt the spiritual path (the true self can not choose ignorance, it is already God-realized) and so only the ego can choose the spiritual path. I say the choice is a choice of the ego, not the true self.

As an absolute idealist, I draw no distinction between the true nature (self) of the sentient being, and the nature of Being (God) itself; for me they are one and the same (identical). Thus, if the nature of Being is necessarily perfect, that is to say, possessed of that which is necessary and sufficient to its being, then so too is the true nature of the sentient being perfect. The ego-personality, on the other hand, given that it is not the true self (real origin and cause) of the sentient being, is necessarily imperfect, for it dwells within the field of time, and is subject to the law of cause and effect. For this reason, the ego-personality’s actions (or, more correctly, “reactions”) are heavily conditioned by it preferences and by inductive inferences drawn from previous experiences. Further, it is the nature of the ego-personality to act always in its own self-interest, even though it may appear to have altruistic motives. This is hardly surprising when one considers that the function of the ego-personality is to ensure our survival in the relative world.

I say there is no difference in nature between God and Higher self. But there is a difference in magnitude.
I agree with your points about the ego and its motives and so on.

The call to awaken comes not from the ego-personality (apparent self), but from one’s true self, which although confused by erroneous thoughts and concepts, retains some awareness of its true nature. This is analogous to the dream state, wherein the dream-personality, however convinced it may be of its own reality, or the reality of the world in which it finds itself, may still awaken to the knowledge that it is all a dream. Such awakenings generally occur because the dream has taken on an unpleasant or nightmarish quality, and this is usually sufficient to arouse the dreamer. It is much the same in the relative world, for it is suffering that generally gives rise to the notion that things may not be as they seem, and sets one upon the path of enquiry.

So, the call is from the higher self, I agree. But the point we may disagree on is, I say the ego makes the choice to follow or reject the spiritual path. This must be true as the higher self would in its wisdom never reject the path, and we would all quickly be enlightened. Thi proves the ego self has the capacity for some free will, which is my point in the OP.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

... while it is ultimately true that good is no better than evil, it is also a practical truth that good is better than evil. We need a dual perspective to correctly see both sides of the truth - the ultimate along side the practical.

It's a tempting thought but would lead to the conclusion that whatever is "ultimate" is not practical and therefore irrelevant, a dream, a fantasy to engage in.

I would raise an eyebrow at the point of the practical being more relevant than the ultimate.

Indeed, it certainly deserves to be specified more in detail. With irrelevant it was meant that it could remain indistinguishable to any other type of dream and with practical I meant something more like consequential.

Or to put it in other words: conceiving the absolute nature of reality will have consequences in how "good and evil" are regarded and treated in our practical lives. Wouldn't it fundamentally differ from any ignorant, static, limited perspective?

This is why I object against the idea of the ultimate being able to "run along side" the practical. It implies a different parallel inner mental world unhindered by any practicalities where our new found truths are always validated. Where they can grow safe and undisturbed, unchallenged because we can just shift perspectives all the time when needed.

During incubation this state is quite common but the real challenge is to arrive in one world, one truth, one life. And in that life it's certainly possible to live out the truth that lies beyond good and evil, which means they would become indistinguishable as every action would cause both, like a wake pattern behind a ship. This is also why it's been said that there's only one way.

[Matt Gregory]

I think it's more than common, Diebert, it's necessary because when you're engaging in your reasoning process, you don't want to compromise your understanding of truth due to worrying about practical concerns. We egotists tend to want to turn our anxieties into ultimate truths, so you want to be able to distance yourself from that as much as possible. Maybe that's what the Buddhists were originally thinking when they introduced that crossed-legged meditation technique.

[Jehu]

So, the call is from the higher self, I agree. But the point we may disagree on is, I say the ego makes the choice to follow or reject the spiritual path. This must be true as the higher self would in its wisdom never reject the path, and we would all quickly be enlightened. This proves the ego self has the capacity for some free will, which is my point in the OP.

The ego-personality partakes of only a relative existence, and like all relative entities, is devoid of any inherent characteristics or potency of its own. Such characteristics or potency as a relative entity may appear to exhibit are not its own, but are posited upon it by that one true Being which its true origin and cause.

The ego-personality, like the dream-personality, is only an apparent entity, and the existence of each is dependent upon the existence of a state of ignorance. However, this ignorance must not be construed as a defect, but rather, as an essential characteristic of Being; for without ignorance there could be no enlightenment. Whatever the nature of Being, that nature must account for all such dichotomies, and so must be itself a dichotomy; one aspect of which is real (absolute), and one that is not real (relative).

[Sapius]

So, the call is from the higher self, I agree. But the point we may disagree on is, I say the ego makes the choice to follow or reject the spiritual path. This must be true as the higher self would in its wisdom never reject the path, and we would all quickly be enlightened. This proves the ego self has the capacity for some free will, which is my point in the OP.

The ego-personality partakes of only a relative existence, and like all relative entities, is devoid of any inherent characteristics or potency of its own. Such characteristics or potency as a relative entity may appear to exhibit are not its own, but are posited upon it by that one true Being which its true origin and cause.

The ego-personality, like the dream-personality, is only an apparent entity, and the existence of each is dependent upon the existence of a state of ignorance. However, this ignorance must not be construed as a defect, but rather, as an essential characteristic of Being; for without ignorance there could be no enlightenment. Whatever the nature of Being, that nature must account for all such dichotomies, and so must be itself a dichotomy; one aspect of which is real (absolute), and one that is not real (relative).

So, in other words, or say in one word, are you saying…. no... ? No decision making, no freedom of choice, or say it would then logically stand to reason, no ‘thinking" (evaluating) on an individual level at all? ? Would the apparent characteristic of ‘thinking’ or calling for the end of ignorance on an individual basis actually mean indulging in ignorance itself?

[Jehu]

So, in other words, or say in one word, are you saying…. no... ? No decision making, no freedom of choice, or say it would then logically stand to reason, no ‘thinking" (evaluating) on an individual level at all?

Consider the case of the dream-personality; just because we deny the true existence of the dream-entity, or that such an entity is capable of thinking, it does not follow that there is no thinking taking place at all; it simply means that origin and cause of that thinking is not as it appears. Neither can we say that there is no decision making taking place, but only that the process is being driven by an erroneous view of the existential status of the dream-world. Consequently, as the decision making process is conditioned by this erroneous metaphysical view, it follows that it is the view which determines the subsequent actions of the dream-personality, and not the will of dream-personality itself.

Would the apparent characteristic of ‘thinking’ or calling for the end of ignorance on an individual basis actually mean indulging in ignorance itself?

Not necessarily, for the awakened ones will continue to encourage others to put an end to ignorance, even though they understand that both concepts (i.e., ignorance and others) are not real. Nevertheless, both ignorance and individuality do exist (relatively), and for this reason, may be brought to an end.

[Sapius]

So, in other words, or say in one word, are you saying…. no... ? No decision making, no freedom of choice, or say it would then logically stand to reason, no ‘thinking" (evaluating) on an individual level at all?

Consider the case of the dream-personality; just because we deny the true existence of the dream-entity, or that such an entity is capable of thinking, it does not follow that there is no thinking taking place at all; it simply means that origin and cause of that thinking is not as it appears. Neither can we say that there is no decision making taking place, but only that the process is being driven by an erroneous view of the existential status of the dream-world. Consequently, as the decision making process is conditioned by this erroneous metaphysical view, it follows that it is the view which determines the subsequent actions of the dream-personality, and not the will of dream-personality itself.

So there is no straight answer on “free will” to be expected I take it.

Would the apparent characteristic of ‘thinking’ or calling for the end of ignorance on an individual basis actually mean indulging in ignorance itself?

Not necessarily, for the awakened ones will continue to encourage others to put an end to ignorance, even though they understand that both concepts (i.e., ignorance and others) are not real. Nevertheless, both ignorance and individuality do exist (relatively), and for this reason, may be brought to an end.

Are you saying you (no need to hide behind a “they” my friend) do not actually believe once you’ve realized the mother of all realizations!? And continue acting out as if nothing happened? Who or what exactly do you thing you are helping to end relativity (or its “idea”), after fully realizing the Truth yourself? Do actually enjoy lying, deceiving and conning yourself? “Nevertheless” does not justify one acting in that way once the Truth of the matter is KNOWN.

(addition)

Yes, ignorance and individuality do exist, and so does a dream.. so? How Real is ignorance and individuality to you that you react so illogically towards it? How logical is it to have concern for dream-entities, especially when the one concerned is a dream-entity to begin with and actually realizes that fully? Are you saying that in enlightenment one transforms into a mouthpiece of the Absolute?