You speak of the body as a biological machine, and in this, you are correct: man is an organic entity. But you err profoundly when you describe consciousness as an "autonomic aberration" or a "fog of uncertainty."
Reason is not a "functional consequence" of chemistry; it is a choice.
Your view suggests that man is a victim of his own synapses, a prisoner of "illusory devils" and genetic programming. I reject this. Man is a being of self-made soul. While the brain is the organ of thought, the process of thought—the act of integration—is not automatic.
You define discipline as the ability to choose suffering. I define it as the loyalty to one’s own conviction. Will is not the struggle to resist a "chemical urge"; it is the commitment to Reason as one's only absolute.
To claim we are "adrift to the whim of reactions" is to negate the very mind you use to form that argument. If your thoughts are merely chemical reactions, they have no claim to truth.
You speak of "martyrs" as proof of dignity. I tell you that dignity is found in the achievement of value, not in the sacrifice of it. A martyr who dies for a cause he does not rationally value is not a hero, but a victim of mysticism.
You are correct that we must "exorcise" the influences of weakness. However, this is not done through "discipline" as a form of self-flagellation. It is done through Objectivity.
"The man who lets a leader [or a chemical urge] prescribe his course is a parasite being led to the slaughter."
The "devils" you describe are simply unfocused premises. When a man refuses to think, he becomes a pawn of his sub-conscious. To be free is to move from the level of percept (which we share with animals) to the level of concept (which is uniquely human).
The "sea of reality" is not a chamber of horrors or a struggle of pain; it is a realm of infinite potential for the man who has the courage to perceive it as it is. Do not seek "absolution through abnegation." Seek triumph through productivity.
Okay I think I've come to grips with everything you've said and I'd like to go point by point, because it will show we agree far more than we don't.
"You define discipline as the ability to choose suffering. I define it as the loyalty to one’s own conviction. Will is not the struggle to resist a "chemical urge"; it is the commitment to Reason as one's only absolute."
Is the test of loyalty to our conviction not proven in the choice to suffer for it? I would consider the commitment to reason as the act of resistance against the urges that control so many. If you don't think so, can you explain the distinction you're drawing to me further?
"To claim we are "adrift to the whim of reactions" is to negate the very mind you use to form that argument. If your thoughts are merely chemical reactions, they have no claim to truth."
I may have gotten a little caught up in the prose, I will try to clarify this on revision. We only feel adrift when the chaos of the world overwhelms us, as it does so many in these troubled times. What I'm trying to set up is the juxtaposition of will and evolutionary behavioral pressures.
"You speak of "martyrs" as proof of dignity. I tell you that dignity is found in the achievement of value, not in the sacrifice of it. A martyr who dies for a cause he does not rationally value is not a hero, but a victim of mysticism."
You said that beautifully. I hesitated to include this line for exactly this reason, it is far too easy to misconstrue. This connects back to "the test of loyalty to our conviction is proven in the choice to suffer for it." I think this is tangible evidence for free will, because no biological urge would cause an animal to willingly adopt suffering for an ideological cause. But I could be wrong on that, I'd like to know what you think on the veracity of that kind of evidence.
"You are correct that we must "exorcise" the influences of weakness. However, this is not done through "discipline" as a form of self-flagellation. It is done through Objectivity."
Oh my goodness no, I don't think anyone should willingly adopt suffering through self harm. What I'm hoping is that these essays will open people's minds to a comprehension of objectivity; A perspective we can never perfectly adopt, but that we can conceptualize and use to improve ourselves. I'll have to revise this passage carefully to avoid that being a possible interpretation, that could be very counterproductive.
"The "devils" you describe are simply unfocused premises. When a man refuses to think, he becomes a pawn of his sub-conscious. To be free is to move from the level of percept (which we share with animals) to the level of concept (which is uniquely human)."
Yes, this is essentially what this essay was intended to convey. Here I am outlining the how the way consciousness evolved in components had an effect on our experience of it, the follow up is more directly describing how our consciousness is programmed throughout our lives by the intellectual and emotional experiences we share. I will try to more clearly make this distinction you have laid out.
"The "sea of reality" is not a chamber of horrors or a struggle of pain; it is a realm of infinite potential for the man who has the courage to perceive it as it is.
It can be, but for many the world we have inherited is truly a chamber of horrors. I know this far too well. In future essays I will illustrate the beauty of our potential, but I think it's important to acknowledge our depths before we can truly appreciate our heights.
"Do not seek "absolution through abnegation." Seek triumph through productivity."
"Absolution through its abnegation" was intended to be a warning but this is poor phrasing, I'm not even sure what I really meant by this anymore. I can't thank you enough for this feedback, communication is very difficult when you can only do it by yourself.
I've been stuck on the follow up essay for over a year now, this one is not a complete thought. I will review it to see if I can avoid giving the misconception that "man is a victim of his own synapses," I do not believe that to be true. What I intended to impart is that these influences exist, not that they control us. Largely what these essays are is an argument for free will, because I find determinist beliefs to be harmful to individual development and to our growth as a society.
Thank you for your feedback, I may have questions for you after I sit with what you've said for a while longer if that's alright.
You speak of the body as a biological machine, and in this, you are correct: man is an organic entity. But you err profoundly when you describe consciousness as an "autonomic aberration" or a "fog of uncertainty."
Reason is not a "functional consequence" of chemistry; it is a choice.
Your view suggests that man is a victim of his own synapses, a prisoner of "illusory devils" and genetic programming. I reject this. Man is a being of self-made soul. While the brain is the organ of thought, the process of thought—the act of integration—is not automatic.
You define discipline as the ability to choose suffering. I define it as the loyalty to one’s own conviction. Will is not the struggle to resist a "chemical urge"; it is the commitment to Reason as one's only absolute.
To claim we are "adrift to the whim of reactions" is to negate the very mind you use to form that argument. If your thoughts are merely chemical reactions, they have no claim to truth.
You speak of "martyrs" as proof of dignity. I tell you that dignity is found in the achievement of value, not in the sacrifice of it. A martyr who dies for a cause he does not rationally value is not a hero, but a victim of mysticism.
You are correct that we must "exorcise" the influences of weakness. However, this is not done through "discipline" as a form of self-flagellation. It is done through Objectivity.
"The man who lets a leader [or a chemical urge] prescribe his course is a parasite being led to the slaughter."
The "devils" you describe are simply unfocused premises. When a man refuses to think, he becomes a pawn of his sub-conscious. To be free is to move from the level of percept (which we share with animals) to the level of concept (which is uniquely human).
The "sea of reality" is not a chamber of horrors or a struggle of pain; it is a realm of infinite potential for the man who has the courage to perceive it as it is. Do not seek "absolution through abnegation." Seek triumph through productivity.
Okay I think I've come to grips with everything you've said and I'd like to go point by point, because it will show we agree far more than we don't.
"You define discipline as the ability to choose suffering. I define it as the loyalty to one’s own conviction. Will is not the struggle to resist a "chemical urge"; it is the commitment to Reason as one's only absolute."
Is the test of loyalty to our conviction not proven in the choice to suffer for it? I would consider the commitment to reason as the act of resistance against the urges that control so many. If you don't think so, can you explain the distinction you're drawing to me further?
"To claim we are "adrift to the whim of reactions" is to negate the very mind you use to form that argument. If your thoughts are merely chemical reactions, they have no claim to truth."
I may have gotten a little caught up in the prose, I will try to clarify this on revision. We only feel adrift when the chaos of the world overwhelms us, as it does so many in these troubled times. What I'm trying to set up is the juxtaposition of will and evolutionary behavioral pressures.
"You speak of "martyrs" as proof of dignity. I tell you that dignity is found in the achievement of value, not in the sacrifice of it. A martyr who dies for a cause he does not rationally value is not a hero, but a victim of mysticism."
You said that beautifully. I hesitated to include this line for exactly this reason, it is far too easy to misconstrue. This connects back to "the test of loyalty to our conviction is proven in the choice to suffer for it." I think this is tangible evidence for free will, because no biological urge would cause an animal to willingly adopt suffering for an ideological cause. But I could be wrong on that, I'd like to know what you think on the veracity of that kind of evidence.
"You are correct that we must "exorcise" the influences of weakness. However, this is not done through "discipline" as a form of self-flagellation. It is done through Objectivity."
Oh my goodness no, I don't think anyone should willingly adopt suffering through self harm. What I'm hoping is that these essays will open people's minds to a comprehension of objectivity; A perspective we can never perfectly adopt, but that we can conceptualize and use to improve ourselves. I'll have to revise this passage carefully to avoid that being a possible interpretation, that could be very counterproductive.
"The "devils" you describe are simply unfocused premises. When a man refuses to think, he becomes a pawn of his sub-conscious. To be free is to move from the level of percept (which we share with animals) to the level of concept (which is uniquely human)."
Yes, this is essentially what this essay was intended to convey. Here I am outlining the how the way consciousness evolved in components had an effect on our experience of it, the follow up is more directly describing how our consciousness is programmed throughout our lives by the intellectual and emotional experiences we share. I will try to more clearly make this distinction you have laid out.
"The "sea of reality" is not a chamber of horrors or a struggle of pain; it is a realm of infinite potential for the man who has the courage to perceive it as it is.
It can be, but for many the world we have inherited is truly a chamber of horrors. I know this far too well. In future essays I will illustrate the beauty of our potential, but I think it's important to acknowledge our depths before we can truly appreciate our heights.
"Do not seek "absolution through abnegation." Seek triumph through productivity."
"Absolution through its abnegation" was intended to be a warning but this is poor phrasing, I'm not even sure what I really meant by this anymore. I can't thank you enough for this feedback, communication is very difficult when you can only do it by yourself.
I've been stuck on the follow up essay for over a year now, this one is not a complete thought. I will review it to see if I can avoid giving the misconception that "man is a victim of his own synapses," I do not believe that to be true. What I intended to impart is that these influences exist, not that they control us. Largely what these essays are is an argument for free will, because I find determinist beliefs to be harmful to individual development and to our growth as a society.
Thank you for your feedback, I may have questions for you after I sit with what you've said for a while longer if that's alright.