Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Considering "Free Will" (more properly): Towards a Moral Meaning in a Physical Context

Because it was established in the previous essays that the terms "freedom", "will", and the compound of these, "free will" have varied meanings, we had to spend quite a bit of time looking into the versatile modes of interpreting these terms in different contexts of their use.  

"Freedom" was shown to have a mundane, almost insipid sense of being the various possible states of a given entity, being, or system, and nothing more than the sum of those possible states.  As long as none of those states were being inhibited by any further states of that system in itself, or in relation to a context of environmental pressures which could augment or diminish those parameters of possibility, then the entity, being or system could be considered "maximally free".  But in an extended sense of freedom, some aspects of an entity, being or sysem may have processes which are organically related to another aspect of the same, and which function as facilitators of the maximal freedom of the primary aspect so that, in relation to any superveiling forces in the environment, some "sub-maximal, but situationally optimal" degree of freedom could be potentially obtained.  THIS form of systemic self-restriction is actually considered a true form of freedom for the being insofar as no further possibilities are explored beyond these three factors as given, and as long as they relate in this simplistic, but potentially complex way (this "simplex" way).  Later in this essay, as suggested in the prior essays, it will be explored how this condtion has an exceptional form wherein this process may be falsified yet presented as real.

Given that "will" is a term more relevant, in our discussion, to biological entities with complex nervous systems, mammals on up to humans let us say, an interpretation of this term was made which reflected the conditions of psychology pertinent to this range of life, especially to the upper bounds of human consciousness and its peculiar qualities.  The idea that the will of a human being reflected issues of its motivation toward pleasure-experiences and away from pain-experiences and all their complex forms of manifestation was established as one which was inescapable for the common sense foundations of our understanding of what a decision-making will might mean, although it clearly didn't dictate the ultimate and most comprehensive understanding of that phenomenon when the issue is raised of values which were transcendental to basic bodily concerns.

Therefore, whatever is meant by "free will", it must be something we understand to have some analogous meaning to a human being's fundamental capacity to make decisions which seem to it, in its operative context of consciousness, to offer the most efficient plan of action to take in settling concerns about its motivations to act, which may range from issues pertaining to its bodily condition, to its thinking parameters per se, to its inner states taken more broadly (intuition, sensation, perception, various other proprioceptive, kinesthetic, and other bodily feelings), and to its conditions of aesthetic and ethical, even moral experience and cognition.

It seems clear that the decisions we make with our freedom to act in domains of body, mind and spirit must certainly be minimally free in the sense of having various potentials available for actualization if decided, but the question is larger than just this minimal framework.  Further we understand that there are information-networks which often form complex feedback loops which engage complex cognitive heuristics that cannot likely maximized in their inherent "entelechic potential" in the context of conventional human social norms and mores!  However then that we understand man's basic causal expression on a material level, there are dimensions of his potential which are not clearly found in merely reducing our understanding of his decision-making process into a sum of his bodily components interacting with an environment that is composed of other, similarly structured beings!

Describe the underlying material and also describe the generally "objectively physical" features of events in which a person makes decisions, and do this all that you want, but it will not encompass or describe or capture the sense and description of the qualia which are properly inherent to the subjective and first-order ontology to which those physicalist descriptions are correlated.  These first-order "ontics" do not reduce to their second-order cartographical reference as "bodies in motion" no matter how strong a correlation can be drawn between "some mental state" called A and "some brain state" called A'.  It wouldn't matter how nuanced, how perfectly correlated was every mental state A with every brain state A', it wouldn't be adequate to the task of describing, understanding, and evaluating subjective phenomena in mental state A by listing the phenomena in brain state A'.

So we return to the inner wealth of our mental phenomena as we ourselves do experience them (unless you are a "philosophical zombie" in the specialized meaning of the term, and you don't actually "experience" anything...), and from this domain of our experiential lexicography we shall get the best possible fund of reference points for getting a grasp on "just what" this "free will" amounts to.

It is clear that there are "inner" experiences to which other embodied minds do not have direct access, insofar as we can directly tell (those of us who aren't already hive-minded beyond our own private subjectivities...).  It is not that we have no good reasons to understand that we each have similar experiences, for the common conduct and interpretations of that conduct in our public and private settings, through the use of human languages of bodily gesture, verbal speech, and other modes of expression, all of which give contextual indications of one another's inner states, for these all tell us that we have no good reason to start off with the assumption that we are in a solipsistic condition. We can conceive such a possibility abstractly, but at the very least our exposure to other humans through our developmental years and adult life have given us strong conditioning against fully experiencing the world "as if" solipsism were true.  

Either way, this essay is directed to those for whom solipsism might be true, as far as they themselves can tell, and it is not directed to phi-zombs (philosophical zombies, henceforth, "phizombs"), who can at best index previous assimilations of philosophical writings on these topics and hash out some iteration of a response or position already given by some other users of English, who themselves could not formulate any original positions on this or similar subjects unless they themselves were not phizombs.

These considerations having been laid out, we can proceed with a constructive thought experiment.

If you find yourself faced with a world where the highest possible expression of your faculties of decision-making is impaired by social constraints which do suggest rational and fair sharing of the spaces of experience in which we find ourselves attempting to concentrate, focus, think, feel, contemplate, meditate, etc, then we have a situation were we are at a crossroads of decision-making which is rather complex, but still understandable according to previously described conditions for interpeting the words "freedom" and "will" and "free will".

We could, as with our tasty peach, ask ourselves whether or not we are able to change the conditions in which we currently attempt our highest possible decision-making processes (entelechic deliberation, let us call it), and we can go through all the sort of reflections and thought experiments and other juicy subjective processes which comprise the process of attempting the maximum entelechic outcome for this specific concern.  We may find we must retreat, in the end, to some better environments in which to do this, or else perhaps in some manner facilitate other changes in our sensory input, or in our physiological states, or perhaps all these and more, in order to make truly worthy attempts at this deliberation.  Descartes was of a mind to do just this when he finally got around to writing his Meditations on First Philosophy

So we understand, reflectively and "in our gut", as it were, that we perhaps are not in some given set of circumstance operating at the fullest potential of our deliberative powers about the subject of whether and how we might be disposed so as best to operate at the fullest potential of our deliberative powers.  Blame it on whatever, we are after some optimal condition and, barring some gross actions of self-defeating brutishness, we seek to find the means which are justified by those ends, which is to say reaching entelechic deliberation about entelechic deliberation.  We want to reach the fullest sense that we are able to bring all of our mental resources to bear on, at the very least this subject, which is whether we are doing this at all and in any case how this can be best achieved given all of our known resources!!  People have left everything behind and moved into distant and secluded mountain shacks in order to do something of this sort, or up into remote caves, or into monastery cells, etc!

But since this is a thought experiment and not a research project in specifically how to do this thing, let us just say that we've laid out that we wish to do this, and that we know why it is so important for us.  The reason why we wish to do this, we have found after long research so as to be absolutely certain it is the best reason, is because we have encountered sufficient data which suggests that there is a broad spectrum of evidence that indicates that society at large, as controlled through conventional and unconventional methodologies, as steered by and through overt and covert processes of manipulation and coercion, is being strategically (in general) and tactically (for certain individuals) deliberately robbed of this entelechic deliberative capacity, especially as it pertains to a consideration of those elements involved in this robbery.

In other words, it has been found beyond the shadow of any doubt that man in general, and certain men and women in particular, are being targeted by methodologies both conventional and unconventional, "legal" and illegal, overt and covert which, collectively, and with regards to certain issues of worthy consideration (such as this issue itself and all connected issues), has been and is being ROBBED OF HIS FREE WILL.  This and, moreover, with regard to the data available for consciousness to process, the process of consciousness involved in that process, and in the possibility for compensation and redress of these situations in any way within a scope of time and space that would make such efforts reasonably possible (especially within these constraints), HE HAS BEEN TURNED INTO A REAL LIFE PHILOSOPHICAL ZOMBIE

Well, if these are our concerns which motivate our research, we are certainly not surprised if by and large such a plot were mainly taken "seriously" only within the vale of fiction and entertainment as a sort of horror story that is meant to "tease" us in our "merely human" tendencies to overreact to the vicissitudes of our complex world with sometimes inordinate levels of paranoid frustration.  But if that's the best rhetorical jab we will encounter against our concrete, voluminous, empirical and logical evidence, drawn from multiple sources both in kind and quantity, then we are unmoved by such a trifling discounting of something we, at least, have the wherewithal to take more seriously, in keeping with the significance of the items involved, and in proportion to our own estimation of its importance within the scope of our own intelligence and dignity.  If others are satisfied with facile dismissals of such things, and are willing to pay others time and money to be fed stories which assuage their subconscious concerns with anecdotal suggestions of "come now, that's just fit to be the plot of a night's entertainment at the cinema", then I simply say to them "to each his own."  You go your way for your entertainment, and I'll go my way for mine, would be my reply.

Except while I find this process of getting at the truth through a cob-webbed, trap-ridden maze of lies to be sometimes entertaining, and at the very least a challenge for my wits, I consider it to be in fact a challenge to my very soul.  It is a challenge thrown at the dignity of my Spirit, and with an added accusation that I should know my place and not bother to accept such a challenge, and slink into the depressing, numbing, insulting and disgusting mob of spiritual failure, and settle for that instead of my own best potential.  I've already established I'm not about to do that.  I will explain more about the process by which I've taken that "challenge" and how much progress I've made in so doing when my answer to the question "what is free will" is further articulated in the next essay.

Friday, July 17, 2015

Considering "Free Will" (even more): Towards a Moral Meaning in a Physical Context

Considering that the world of possibilities is far more complex than the more limited slice of that world which is made actually manifest, we can imagine that the world of possibilities which our mind is able to comprehend and entertain is also much more complex than we usually process.  It is not to say that it is more so than we can process, if all other constraints on our time, attention, and energy are removed, but rather it is to say that we commonly do not go into things in our minds anywhere nearly as deeply as we might have.

I could have spent more time, attention, and energy considering all sorts of implications about even such a seemingly trite situation as the eating of a peach, but in reality I did not consider it with even 5% of the depth which I have done here in these essays.  It is really just that much of what I consider in detail here in analytical form is processed more fluidly and intuitively.  I still have the sense of reaching a decision through a deliberate consideration of the situation, but it is done in a more streamlined way than described in analysis here.

Many decisions were made far in advance of those made later, and with such a sense of authority that they serve as a template upon which later decisions are made more speedily and with less conscious focus.  That said, if there were any discrepancies in the circumstances which prevented such a convenient process of a decision by precedent, then it has been my experience that a certain discomfort would set in which leads to hesitation, circumspection, and appropriate reassessments and reevaluations of the process so as to reach an appropriate decision.  Sometimes it is a false alarm, but sometimes it is not.

Appearances can often be deceiving, and further study of the environment is often rewarded with surprising turns in the quality of information which is available for our decisions.  Sometimes we are able to scale up the quality of our decisions even while we make them in the same basic fashion, tweaking them for optimality, simply by knowing a little more than we did a mere few seconds before making a decision.  Sometimes minute details unravel the entire framework of our expectations and anticipations about what is possible, likely, and necessary.  It may even be the case that wholly different echelons of consideration break into the forefront of our minds as we discover novelties which lay just beneath the surface of appearances.  Appearances can sometimes be revealing.

Within the depth of the world of phenomena, beyond the surfaces of appearances, is much "play" for events to unfold with features and properties which are not reasonably expected by the minds of some agents who act in those environments.  Likewise, within the depths of the minds of agents there are many factors of thought, intuitive or analytical, and of feeling, and of mnemonic evocation, or even just perceptual shifting which is dependent upon a change of focus, of attention, or concentration. All of these features affect the mind's assessment and evaluation of data, and influence how we generate further data, whether in how our senses are tethered or allowed to drift across stimuli, or in how crops of sense data are immediately filtered, and finally how they are perceived in a context already teeming with anticipatory gestalten of our interpretive proclivities.

All of these have a certain determined outlay of tendencies and interactions with one another, all these internal features of the mind.  Add to this the adventitious features of the outer environment, which may come upon our experience in any way, for all we know, and there is some room for further complexity, although it may all have been completely predictable in hind sight, or from a sufficiently over-arching vantage.  In a sense, there is no freedom here, but just a lot of complexity, yet a complexity that is processed in real time, and which keeps acting as a cause of future effects which roll through the present moment in a continuous stream.

"No freedom" in the sense that what comes next hinges on what came before, like a machine without variance in each instance.  But infinite freedom in that there are, technically, no constraints on the entirety of the process, because all parts of the process are involved in the totality of it in some due proportion, or else participation would be impossible, and the total would never be integrated from the parts, which would never communicate into a totality of "what is going on, everywhere, now".  That said, we know already that "freedom" means different things in different contexts, and here we mean by that term the proportion of the fullness of expressive actuality of a being with respect to its fuller potential to express its own nature. Insofar as the nature of beings include interactive features which develop some rapport with other beings, so that expressions in tandem result in a sense of full freedom for all involved, then they do not necessarily limit one another's freedom.

Certainly, what part of a being's nature is expressed, and within the context of what other parts of the being's nature, is a factor here.  If desire is the part to be considered, and if there are factors of cognition which tend to mediate the actions which lead to that desire's fulfillment, then we could get a full spectrum of "free actions" which range from zero fulfillment forever all the way to infinite fulfillment immediately, at least theoretically. These two possibilities, and all in between, as well as all actions which lead to any of them, may be considered "free actions" of the being.  But when we are speaking of a situation where beings must parley with one another in order to express some actualization of their potentials in a common domain of expression, such as citizens in a public setting, we have a special context in which to interpret "freedom".

What is the optimal way for people to exercise their freedoms in a context in which each one's expression may directly and significantly affect those expressions which are the rights of others in the same domain of action?  It would seem that some sense of what is fair is to be agreed upon and mutually enjoined by all for the sake of some satisfaction for all, and with the least grief for all. Whatever that ideal, it would be some "norm", some abstract possibility of common action which if all were to heed to it, all would be best satisfied without anyone being unduly aggrieved. This is a very grey area, but it reveals that there is a lot of room for exploration and discovery, not necessarily that there is no such ideal norm.  Just as we know that pi is a Greek letter used to represent a number which would be the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference, we can know it exists without knowing exactly what it is with infinite precision just on the basis that we know there must be some such ratio!  Whether the operative norm for any set of human behaviors in any given context is "rational" or "irrational" is an interesting question for another occasion.

Suffice it here to say that such norms are quite conceivable.  If you are going to a rock concert to read Foucault, or if you are going to a library to practice rhetorical speech, good luck with that. Norms, however grey, will sort some things out rather consistently.  Theories about how people measure and define reciprocity and appropriate degrees and proportions of actions are many and complex, but they do reflect an underlying reality which operates in real time and which regulates the flow of many decision-making processes in most people, in most contexts.

One is free to act in certain ways, but there will be repercussions for the freedoms of others, according to norms which operate in the constitution of people's minds and bodies, under prevailing conditions of the environments in which they are operating. People who acknowledge certain norms will have a range of responses from which to choose when reacting to people who transgress such norms, and people all have different thresholds of tolerance, degrees of response, and methods of reaction, and so the complexity continues even into these areas which may seem to some very simple. 

In any of these cases, the over-arching consideration is what are, again, the ultimate values which guide the sense of the norms which operate, for the whole domain, whether it is a public and aggregate grouping of agents in a specific context, or whether it is a person who, in his own mind, must sort out the best way of going about reorganizing his file cabinet.  Whatever the context, whoever the agent, whatever the constraints or dimensions of the project involved, the agent must initiate the fulfillment of some desire, mediate its fulfillment by way of some methodology for action, and coordinate these two in the context of an environment of other agents, whether they are physical objects or other persons.

The degrees and kinds of freedom which a being has is clearly determinable within the total sum of all agents involved, as interacting in a specific context which informs their actions by way of norms which are either public or private (socially), objective or subjective (psychologically).  

So what is the fundamental freedom of will within this paradigm?  Since there is a constant and pervasive gap between what is and what might be, as well as what is and what best should be, in any of these contexts, we can say that each agent has the freedom to explore what is, for themselves individually, the unknown of these parameters of their own freedom.  Some do know what the parameters are, but simply wish to explore the limits of other people's patience, other people's vindictiveness, other people's vigilance, and so forth... But for now we'll stick the the more general landscape.

Given that agents do not know everything about their own desires, they have a lot to explore there. From a young age onward, their environment is constantly interacting with them to inform them what are the appropriate norms for their behaviors.  The entire psychic structure of a being as complex as a human is cast, as it were, in the mold of how others treat it for its every step, every utterance, every gesture.  The life of an individual person, and the question of "how free" that person is, can be examined very richly on this single dimension alone, in terms of how they have responded to the pressure of other agents upon their own expression of fundamental process of their own psyches to explore and understand their own desires, or even just the contents of their own minds!

Linguistic breadth and depth, body self-image, self-esteem, roles and identities of personhood, and many other features of a human being can be understood as a long and perhaps never-resolved struggle to even begin to find proper and meaningful traction into the question of how to approach any of these and many other features of a personal self with more freedom to explore and reach more satisfactory results in those personal frontiers.  Most people will not get very far in that endeavor, sadly.  Most will not even know what such explorations really mean outside the narrow contexts of interpersonal dramas programmed into them from a young age, and will recapitulate their infantile development all the way to an old-aged death.  Not much meaningful freedom there.

Some will break further from the molds of such developmental dross, but with varying degrees of success.  Education, or the development of any of the person's higher faculties of expression of self, will play a significant role in the question of their exercise of such deeply personal freedoms as are merely hinted at here.  One doesn't have to be Henry David Thoreau to have a sense of the depth of significance which lies in this domain of what might be called the personal struggle for optimal freedom of self-expression, but he had a lot of poignant things to say about this.

We can see in the world many people who could have explored their freedom in this regard either more or less than they did, or more or less well, or more or less widely, deeply, etc and so on.  We can see that there was room for choosing differently in each case, and that this room included room to take more time to make some critical decisions, room to listen to more advice (or less), room to listen more carefully to different other "advice" from the stimuli which arise in the heart and mind, as well as which arise in the form of concrete or perhaps intangible evidence from the environment.  It is not a mystery that people had this freedom and chose in different ways.  Each chose according to his or her own nature, within the context of exigent circumstances.

But what, more precisely, and in each case, governs each decision within these realms of freedom? What does this, from the most general category of agent and choice, down to the most particular individual mired within the most peculiar circumstances?  Is it just some mass of predetermined causes which can be neatly parleyed into basic and material categories of cause such as genetic predisposition which unfolds into tissues masses that simply obey the laws of physics in a biological context, which interact with environmental conditions that have been determined physically since the big bang and which have been mechanically churning out effects from primordial causes long ago to the present moment with a sort of blind, if very articulate "freedom" bound by forms?

Looking within at our own personal experiences we can find a pattern which seems to transcend such a pseudo-objective, materialistic reductionism.  The longer our experience, the more we have an opportunity to see in ourselves what is truly best for ourselves, what is not, and what sort of environments are truly best for our selves, and what are not, and by this we can tell what sort of people we are, what sort of people others are, and what sort of societies we have been living in.  We can assess values more deeply, more broadly, more abstractly, and more coherently, and with more attention to detail which is peculiar to each exacting and particular kind of faculty of self and feature of environment, and we can get a better and more proper sense of what is going on within our selves and in the world around us.  If we can do this to a very high and consistent degree, so that it becomes an expression of our own true nature to do so, then we are naturally philosophers, for this activity is a kind of wisdom, and to keep doing it out of such a primordial desire is surely a love of wisdom.  To do so reflectively and with an added power of techne upon the inner nature of nous is surely to become a philosopher in practice as well as in natural habit, and to add upon the first nature with a reinforcing second nature.  That might be even better in some cases.  Some may be satisfied with being philosophical in some specific ways, to some specific extents, without going this far or this wide, but some perhaps can only be their best by doing exactly this.

In a world full of people grasping in the darkness as to what is TRUE, what is BEST, and what is TRULY BEST, for themselves, let alone for others, let alone for ALL BEINGS, surely those who do philosophy (in this sense), and do it to the best and highest degree, are most fit to understand and explain what FREEDOM is to everyone else who goes around the world like marbles in a Hungry Hippo game, being gobbled up by processes they do not, even CANNOT understand, blindly and stupidly pushing each other into the mouths of fates, being beholden to those who PRONOUNCE themselves authorities on such matters but actually demonstrate no wisdom on such matters, who arrogantly and perpetually bash their ham-handed fists onto the levers of power, potentates of ARBITRARY MONOPOLIZATION of FREEDOM to COERCE AND DECEIVE!  Indeed, in most cases they DEMONSTRATE PROFOUND IMMORALITY, UNETHICALITY, and as to offices of authority, SHAMEFUL CORRUPTION BEYOND REPAIR!

That humankind endures such contemptible conditions describes not a condition of freedom at all, and it could be said to have "freedom" only in the most insipid and bookheaded sort of perversity of interpretations of the word, which means the freedom to keep being stupid, blind, stubborn, abused, and trampled upon, while supporting gloating, gluttonous, monstrous, cruel, ignorant, abusive control-freak cowards of the lowest moral caliber.

So here we leave behind us the confines of a merely scholastic and "sophistic" exploration of freedom, and enter the great frontiers of Spiritual Freedom, which is by and large utterly unexplored by those who have til now had all the time they could ever want on the biggest soapboxes anyone could ever build, and with the most captive and dumbfounded audience any con-artist could ever hope for.  But again, due to constraints which have already been quite surpassed by this essay, the deeper regions of freedom will not be broached until the next.

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Considering "Free Will" (some more): Towards a Moral Meaning in a Physical Context

The discussion of the topic of free will, up to now, has lent to us a sense that it is a phenomenon which is viably described in physical, empirical, biobehavioral terms.  We understand the root elements involved by direct experience, and they have an intelligible interrelation when coordinated under the rubric of decision-making processes in which the term "free will" is commonly used.  But there are two problems with which we are presented, and I will argue that their relationship with one another is not at all a simple one at first, and that it will not become a simple one until the proper analysis is found for them.

The first issue is the question of what all this discussion means in moral terms.  The second issue is what sort of freedom is it that is implied by the subjective aspect of this phenomenon?  Most discussion about the "problem" of free will revolves around these two questions in some form.  For example, in the first question people will often ask what is the meaning and purpose of blame if the being is simply acting according to its own nature?  Can a being be shunned for behaving naturally "as if" it could have done otherwise?  As if it it should have done otherwise?  What does such moralizing behavior really mean?  At least, what is that sort of behavior in the context already established for examining freedom of will as a "natural phenomenon"?

The second question is actually the "harder" of the two, and so is the less commonly approached.  It involves asking questions about what is the actual nature of the mental phenomena involved in decision-making, and what "freedom" really means in that context.  This is not a simple issue, because it relates to larger questions in the same vein which ask, most generally, what are the relations between mind and body, between psyche and brain. That is the area of philosophy which began to pick up steam more earnestly during the early modern period of philosophy, with landmark thinkers such as Descartes, Locke, Malebranche, and quite a few others.  Even till today this issue has not be satisfactorily clarified, although some significant hashing out of the territory of the discussion has taken place.

But while the "easier" topic is the one often broached most, it is the "harder" topic which contains the "first hand" experience upon which we will draw in order to reach meaningful results in any event, regardless of which topic we discuss, and so it will be the second question we will approach first.

The issue here is narrowed down into our present discussion by asking ourselves "what it is like", subjectively, to make a decision.  We may as well go back to our erstwhile peach, the eating of which I must confess is still quite memorable, and in a positive way, for I believe I made the best possible decision concerning how to go about that activity, under the circumstances, so that even now I have the reward of a pleasant memory of the event, unmarked by any negative consequences which might have ensued had I simply eaten it without regard to place.

I ate the peach "at" an establishment which offers food, although the main commodity there is coffee or tea drinks.  I felt there was perhaps some ambivalence in some of the staff there toward myself already, and so perhaps some possible friction which might arise if I did anything to attract any specific negative attention from them.  Knowing that I buy only a minimum amount of coffee there in order to spend a few hours online (using my own hotspot, but their electricity), for example to write the first essay on this subject, and that hence I had barely covered the justification for my presence, and combining this with the sense that there was some ambivalence on the part of staff about my presence, I feel that I rightly induced that blatantly breaking a rule of such a business by eating something right inside, in full view of all staff and customers, would have perhaps been a bit too much. It did matter that one of the staff was a shift leader who seemed quite disrespectful to my custom on one occasion, and that he was working concurrently with the store manager, who herself had seemed to harbor some negative evaluation of me.

I chose, therefore, to eat the peach outside, just as one might step outside to smoke a cigarette or take a phone call.  The sidewalk right outside no more belonged to this cafe than to any other establishment in the shopping center, and I was no less a customer for taking this action, and it broke no rule of the establishment.  It might not have been enjoyed by staff who were ambivalent toward me, but it would have avoided giving any opportunity for them to directly confront me as though I had done anything wrong, since I didn't eat the peach right in there. They know I'm not a big spender, but I'm still a customer, with no less a right to be there than the others.  If anything, this action on my part shows that I have respect for the rules of the establishment and good sense about my precarious position as a customer there, so by all rights it ought to increase the security of my custom more than would have been possible if I hadn't done this at all, and certainly much more than if I had eaten the peach right in there!

So what was going through my mind when making this decision is easy to understand and for some it is something to which it is easy to relate.  Now the groundwork laid in the first essay will be rewarded in what follows, for it will make the subsequent analysis easier and more intelligible.

It was in my nature to desire to eat, and I knew that my doing so would have to be modified as to place of eating in order to maximize the value of executing the decision to eat without leaving that place.  I modified how I did the action, and then I proceeded to do it in modified form. I did this freely in that it is part of my nature to maximize the value of my decisions.  I could have done this in other ways, but none of them seemed to reach the same level of gratification as did this particular way.  I could have left the place entirely, gone to the bus bench outside after packing up my things, left my spot open to be taken by someone else, eaten the peach, then come back in looking a bit odd even to those who might have spited my presence otherwise, as they'd surely be able to see the folly of requiring me to do all that to eat a peach when I'm going to come back anyway as I would be no less right to do than anyone else.

They'd see it as odd even though they were perhaps miffed, at least subconsciously, that I'd avoided going through all that, as well as avoided leaving, and ate the peach outside.  Ironically, they were probably almost as much pleased that I'd not blatantly broken a rule of theirs even though it would have also given them ammunition needed to eject me from their place of slavery, I mean "work". So that method wasn't really better than the method I chose.  It also carried the significant risk of not only looking odd, making me look odder than I already do to some, but also of losing my spot as someone else might have chosen to take it once it was empty.

They might not like me, but they can't blame me for not being foolish, and they can't blame me for eating my peach, and they can't blame me for how I went about it.  I spent less time out there eating that peach than some do on their phones or smoking cigarettes or whatever else.  And it's not like I was eating it in the window, grinning and pointing at it, making a scene at everyone there.  It was an innocuous act the way that I did it.  

I didn't choose to eat it in the place for reasons already explained.  In fact, doing so would be almost tantamount to doing that ridiculous thing in the window at everyone which I of course wouldn't do (so why would I eat inside?).

All in all, it is incredible how much better it is to delay gratification, alter the method of eating, and yet not leaving the place en toto, than it would be to "act freely and naturally" in the other ways.  I was of course FREE to do those other things, if I had felt they would be better for some reason, but I did not.  I wanted to stay longer, but I wanted to eat my peaches, too.  And I didn't want to lose my place, but I didn't want to break the rule, mainly because I didn't want to be kicked out (not because I think that rule is so sacrosanct, or that place "so awesome").  I acted freely in rational terms, according to parameters of decision-making within which I had elected to make my decision.

Yet in all this freedom of mine there were constraints.  They were mainly practical constraints which describe one set of variables in a calculus of pleasure optimization, a sort of utilitarianist methodology of action.  This is especially true when it is admitted that I felt no real ethical or moral motivation for doing what I did, and even rather have some moral motives for jumping over the counter and eating the peach right in the faces of those people who think themselves so fit to judge my presence in a negative way, especially when I know so much more about the reality of the world in which they act as though zombies pulled on the strings of ignorance to dance some ridiculous dance of feeling like they have power in their little place of slavery.

And that brings us to the deeper level of the decision-making process.  What are the ultimate values which guide our decision making process?  How are those formed, and how are they executed in a world where the reference points for our decision-making frame the decisions we make more in terms which are not really consistent with the fullness of our knowledge about what is really best and most appropriate in those very same circumstances?  We know the world's script is defined according to certain norms, and we may navigate our courses of action with some coordination with them.  But we may also experience a significant gap between the total give and take of mental and spiritual energy which is manifested in that "public matrix" of expression and what would be perhaps a much truer expression of who we really are and what all these circumstances really mean to us.

This is the grey area where people skirt many lines.  Here is where art has demonstrated through the ages that is is a domain where anyone is able to stake out a realm of dominion for their own inner life, their own spirit, and thereby live out their own soul, manifest their own animate expression in ways more fully meaningful and rewarding to themselves.  This is all more or less sublimated, and in some cases it can be pretty damned blunt.  And there are interesting ways here where life imitates art and reacts to it, even is changed by it, rather than merely this being a long story of art pussyfooting around the harsh realities of "real life".  But those areas of consideration are too varied and rich to be further sampled in this context, and would amount to a severe digression.

So we found that the inner experience of my decision-making process had a utilitarian calculus which seems to have been optimal, although this can and will be further explored as tentatively sub-optimal, with implications about my so-called "freedom", as well as my so-called "nature".  We found also that there was a distinct set of ambiguities in the interpretation of the environment in which the decision was made, some complexities about which could not be resolved beyond some bare assessment, and which might have been disjoint in their own "inner reality", in many ways, from my "outside" assessment according to my own "inner reality".  And then, most substantively, there was an entire dimension of decision-making which was not properly embodied in that sequence of events and their examination, which in its own way is also subject to further clarification and also embedded with inherent ambiguities which may be situationally and perhaps even metaphysically impossible to surmount except in the most abstruse and abstract ways which are normally only found in the pages of obscure and arcane books.

But our task involves resolving these complexities, ambiguities, and further dimensions, or at least my goal is to fulfill the resolution of those issues in my own mind.  But that will require a space of text, and a duration of time, which exceeds the limits of this second essay, and so will have to await the promulgation of a third.  I have already decided to write it, whether or not to read it is totally up to the reader.  But if the reader has an inclination toward what is in the best interests of his or her own Spirit, I am sure that he or she will not be disappointed.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Considering "Free Will": Towards a Moral Meaning in a Physical Context

It has been said that "free will" is a universal law, and that it would be necessarily the case that it is or else evil would have run rampant over all that resists it long ago.

Leaving aside just what the terms "free" and "will" actually mean, the argument continues that there is empirical evidence that forces of control in various sectors of human existence require a process of gradual control by means of manufactured consent. That there is some sort of "loophole" by which an informed agent who does not affirm against some proposition is thereby "on record" as a proponent for it.

These are relevant phenomena in the discussion, and they do point to an attempt to manipulate a person's consciousness so that it will be more favorable to some proposed situation, or at least bound by some implicit sense of being unopposed to it. That a consciousness can be influenced in just such a way does tell us a lot about what that consciousness is and what it does, what it is capable of, and it is likely that in the cluster of information which can be derived from this evidence we can better develop a functional definition of free will.

When a person or any other thing "acts freely", it simply acts according to its nature, as the philosopher David Hume has rightly observed. That is to say that anything, a living thing for example, will do what it has it "in its nature to do", as long as nothing influences it to do otherwise. In other words, if it does not encounter resistance to how it lives, a living being will live in a way that is in accordance "with its nature".

What makes for the sense of freedom is the situation where there is no other force which acts to resist this living being from acting freely according to its nature. So we immediately have one form of the idea of freedom, as being a state in which a thing is doing what it must, according to its nature, without any interference from anything else.

What kind of freedom is this? That means that the nature of the being is what is free, not the being itself. The being's behavior is simply the effect of the cause, the cause being the being's nature.

What is the nature of a being? We know a being exists, let us say. That is a bare fact which is open to further qualification. We then ask "how" it exists. It has a mode of existence which can be categorized by various paradigms of examination and analysis, or else by other approaches which operate by means of perceptions and intuitive processes that resemble cognition in some ways, but offer more direct routes of relation to those beings for the consciousness which interacts with them.

It is apparent that "nature" is a catchall for what "in the being" acts as the cause of its activities. When we are looking for the freedom of the being to "act out" its own nature, we are asking about the causes of the activity which are anchored in the being's own constitution, whatever the being, whatever the elements of its composition.

Aristotle worked out a great deal of the conceptual canvass in this area of thought which western philosophy has used ever since that time, and which it still uses. Eastern philosophy has likewise found similar approaches in both its Taoist and Confucian branches of thought, especially in the Neo-Confucian schools.

We are, as some have said, in very charted waters, yet we are not quite clear on what we mean by the "free will" yet, not yet with the sort of precision that true clarity would require. Let us accept the simplex formulation of what the element of "freedom" implies, as discussed above, at least for now, and simply for the purposes of a completed circuit of examination in a reasonably short time.

What is this "will"? Is it not a part of the nature of the being which has this faculty? Surely it is. Aristotle categorizes it as part of what is involved in the initiation of action in the living being, and calls it therefore part of the "soul" of the being, which is to say part of what animates the being (De Anima, Aristotle). It is a some sort of capacitor of action. It is some aspect, at least, of the being's capacity for action.

At this stage we are in danger of saying that it is simply that part of the being which is most essentially its unfettered nature! That being the case, we would being saying something in a way repetitively. It is the most natural part of a being's nature, which is simply that aspect of a being which is the cause of its manner of existence, that aspect which gives rise to the manifest actions of the being when it is in existence.

But we are speaking very specifically when we are talking of the will of a being. We are not even speaking of animals generally, but specifically of self-conscious animals, like humans. In this context "will" offers us a bit more to consider. We are in an excellent position to delve into this empirically, as we have first-hand experience in this regard, in that we are, presumably, human beings.

When we experience some desire, we are already well-stocked with a repertoire of actions which we may take in order to fulfill it. We seem to have an inherent awareness that the meaning of the experience of "desire" is something which requires us to act toward its fulfillment. It may be a positive experience in that a possibility of pleasure is promised, or it may be a negative one, in that a possibility of pain lies in its being unfulfilled. Indeed, when it comes to these matters, it is hard to get to a more fundamental aspect of experience than pleasure and pain! Pleasure seems the essence of a desire, and pain seems the essence of something the opposite of pleasure, which is to say something that we essentially do not want, something we essentially "desire" to avoid.

Now when it comes to the question of what a freedom is in this regard, the buck fairly stops with pain and pleasure. We are not free to experience pleasure as inherently undesirable, and we are not free to experience pain as something inherently desirable. This cannot be the case. The "sense" of these experiences just is their sense of being desirable or undesirable.

But even though we may experience some specific desire that we deem pleasurable, such as the tasting of a peach, we may easily consider the means of fulfilling that desire, such as how to acquire a peach, how to handle it, where to produce it for consumption, how to consume it, and so on. These are additional considerations which attend the fact that we don't "just eat" a peach. We must get hold of it, we must handle it, we must consume it by some method. Sure, this is easier for most animals, who just grab and begin devouring. And we could do that also, if we so chose, but we may have other considerations to take into account.

Of those just mentioned in passing, we select the question of where to eat the peach. If I were in a place where I could envision undesirable consequences which directly result from the place in which I eat the peach, I now have an undesirable consequence attached to a desirable goal. That is a problem, a contradiction, which naturally I will wish to resolve, since that is not the nature of pleasure, to be painful. It is also not the nature of pain, to be pleasurable. The "metabiology" and psychological phenomenology of mind both agree on this, all supposed "grey areas" excluded. The desirable goal, the eating of the peach, is still desirable, but some aspect of it is found to be undesirable. Because we can envision a way to satisfy the desire in a way that does avoid the painful aspect, we naturally prefer to fulfill the desire in that way.  Thereby we fulfill the desire, but avoid the undesirable aspect of it which is immediately presented to us.  We will have to delay gratification a bit, but we thereby find more gratification in the final result than if we had not.

This all entails a process of deliberation which is an aspect of the mind directly related to our discussion of "will" and so deserves more attention.  Well, the mind is nothing if not, at least partly, one part of one organism, at least in cases which we are considering here. Whether derived from the organism, transcendent to it but derived from some other substrate other than a mind, or else any other matter of consideration pertaining to origin and further reaches of mind's nature, we'll leave out for now. Just take it that with respect to experiences of desire per a single body to which it is attached, and with respect to its possibilities of fulfillment of said desire, it must act "as one" unit of agency and action.

Perhaps it will accept the negative, perhaps painful consequences of the fulfillment of a desirable goal. But what if the mind can find a possible way of fulfilling the desire, reaching the goal, completing the required actions, all in such a way that the negative, painful consequences are minimized, while the desire is still essentially fulfilled? Would the mind not prefer such a method if it were cognizant of it and had a means by which to execute the actions as revised by these considerations?

Of course it would, as evidence amply suggests. We do this all the time when we interact with events into which our desires and actions relate in a feedback loop which allows us to consider the desirability and possibility of modifying our actions in accordance with two major features:
1) Desirability
2) Undesirability
We want to maximize the first, and minimize the second. Now since our "unfettered" nature would have probably had us act in some less modified way at first, before we were "informed" of the drawbacks to that course of action, we may say in some sense that this was our "free will" in its simpler form. If we were free to so act without any negative consequences, why wouldn't we? Indeed, if we were in some way concerned about possible pains and problems for which we had no evidence, wouldn't that be strange?

In fact, according the meaning of "acting naturally", we would have simply taken out the peach and begun eating it according to the simple mechanics involved, as do the simplest animals when faced with similar prospects. But wasn't or "freedom to act naturally" inhibited by awareness that it wouldn't be as fulfilling as our first impulses had seemingly assumed? Indeed, the environment seems to have inhibited us by arraying before us some evidence of these considerations. But in fact what most proximally caused this inhibition was our own awareness of the loss of value in performing the desired action, and this was specified in regards how. We shall not eat the peach here, but perhaps we shall eat it!

This is where we see that in fact we have "acted freely" because it is part of our nature to consider the full result of our actions, insofar as we are able, and not merely stupidly fulfill some desire without consideration of a context which adds much for our consideration. If this were not the case, how could we have survived in environments where such considerations are often the matter of life and death, and that such issues seem, more or less, to determine the prospects of propagating into (then) future progeny (now alive in the present) the genetic structures which make such behavioral capacities possible?

And these are of the nature of a being which processes pain and pleasure, which is already a bifurcation of consciousness in an antivalently polarized form of goal-directed decision making. These further bifurcations are simply the natural outcropping of a precedent set of bifurcations in the fundamental architecture of the being and are a natural articulation of its fundamental nature.

But what kind of "free will" is this in the human context? Is this just a complexification of animal impulses? Of course it is, in its mechanism, but it is not merely an animal mechanism in its express use. This is because some human beings demonstrate a MORAL PRINCIPLE in their decision-making process, and are capable of utilizing this mechanism of decision making in a moral context.

What makes this especially meaningful in this moral context will be considered in the next essay.

Saturday, July 11, 2015

To the Evil Fools and their "God"

To the world of psychotronic manipulators, oligarchic fiends, street thug accomplices, hierophantic pretenders to Spirit, drug addicted pretenders to mirth, people of fakery and mockery of all and any VALUES; to all of you who perpetrate the fraud of your FAKE NATURE, and FALSE NORMS, you may all go STRAIGHT TO OBLIVION, and on the way you will face every form of physical and spiritual justice which does exist and will be applied to you with FULL ACCURACY and PERFECT COMPLETENESS.

Do not bother me with your wily little games and innuendos, I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE.  The game has long been up, ever since I first detected it accurately back in 2010, with full knowledge of what you are doing, who you are, and what you are.  I rejected you then, I rejected you since, I reject you now, and you are rejected forevermore. If you want to "become one" with someone, why not become one with Lord Shiva, who comes to put you back into your place, you would-be, you sham pretenders to the Pillar of Jacob.  YOU DO NOT act as my psychopomps, nor as my mystagogues, nor as even my brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, mothers, fathers, etc etc etc.  

You cowards, you fakes, you pretenders, you beasts, you immoral degenerates, you freaks.  You think you are dwelling on "Mount Olympus"?  Really?  Is that what your damned delusions tell you? Be assured of one thing, I REJECT YOUR SHAM.  You have absolutely NO AUTHORITY, NO JURISDICTION, NO PREROGATIVES with me. 

Now if you are really so GUTLESS as to continue this charade with me, so be it.  You are already clearly without the capacity to "think outside your box" enough to see WHAT you are, and foolishly take my references to you as a "rant" and as some sort of arbitrarily subjective defiance.  Well let me tell you what, you spineless, heartless, mindless, soul-less, and unspirited cowards,  you flesh bags of infamy and cosmic shame:  IF YOU THINK YOU'VE THE RIGHT TO MESS WITH MY SOVEREIGNTY, you will have another thing coming. Our origins are diametrically opposed, and so will be our destinies.

It have seen and heard your utterly ineffectual pretenses of authority acceptable, and I have consciously and deliberately made a judgement about that. Now I will propose something to YOU, I propose that you GO STRAIGHT TO HELL, and that if you need any help getting there, to come see me personally yourself!  I know that whomever is the "local" stooge of the so-called elites who think they have this right of coercion and subterfuge will automatically intercede for you, I know that YOU will never face me, being utter cowards and fiends.

I will spare the preliminaries of any direct and open encounter by letting you know what and who I am and what I'm about, and what I'm not going to be about, and what I am doing and planning on doing.

1) I am a Sovereign Spiritual Being, I don't answer to anyone on this earth or anywhere else save that Ultimate Being which is my Progenitor. It doesn't matter one whit whether you understand this or not, it is a fact.  Nothing which takes place in this SHAM WORLD will change this, and I will not entertain your delusions to the contrary.  I am NOT this body, but this body answers to ME, and I will use it to fully express my RIGHTS as the Being that I AM.

2) I am about Truth and Reality, and for this world this will entail a harsh rectification by way of Divine Justice. I am about complete disclosure of all that is hidden, and I am about the administration of Complete Destruction of YOUR kind, who are evil beings who perpetrate dominance and fraud by means of coercion and deception.  I am NOT about compromises with you, listening to your nonsense about your motives and reasons, and I don't want to hear or see any bullshit from you which pretends to be a justification for your evil acts.

3) What I am doing and what I am going to continue doing is EXPOSE THE TRUTH about you and what you are up to, making merry and happy showing you in your true light, for what you really are, and doing so in any way that I see fit.  By doing my work tirelessly and perpetually, you will be forced to face the facts of what and who I really am, what the Truth and Reality really is, and what is soon to come to pass over the earth!  

There is nothing that you can do to stop these facts from being true, and I am in fact simply revealing the Truth and its consequences, which are INEVITABLE.

Now most of your scum are from some damned evil-spawned potluck of misapporpriated energy and so you find yourselves with the image of authority.  This is born out because you "have things" and you "have connections" in the world which ensure that you will continue to "have things", and that this will enable you to be relatively comfortable over others, many of whom truly ARE your "playthings".  They are things you "have" by virtue of the other things you have.  All of this was given to you by your disgusting origin which is shameful and which is anathema in the Cosmos.

To top all this off, you have manifested a pretense at JUSTIFICATION which declares all manner of fanciful notions about your origins, your virtues, your deservedness, your powers, you nature, your destiny, and many other things of which the proper speaking requires a proper subject, which is to say the Right Being to whom these attributes refer. YOU ARE NOT THAT BEING, nor are you of that Being.  You are an ERROR which has no capacity nor inclination to be corrected. End of subject concerning who YOU really are.

Your pretenses of justification are nothing but the filthy rhetoric of demons, yes demons, who will say and do anything to avoid the TRUTH. You demonstrate an origin in error, not in Divinity, you demonstrate no virtues, but rather extreme hypocrisy, you don't deserve what you have, though you have stolen it, and what you deserve you have not yet received, though you WILL, namely DIVINE JUSTICE, and all your "power" is a rigged game against those who were disempowered from the beginning and whose generosity toward your spiritual weakness was then used against them, and concerning your nature you are of the nature of spiritless things which dance on the strings of a puppet master, who manipulates you through your egos to orchestrate and perpetrate the  most heinous evils that could possibly manifest in this or any "world", and for all this you yet exist, this "thing which should not be".

If you think I'm interested in your fantasies of legacy, of control, of kinship, of right, of merit or any other insane and twisted lies you tell yourselves and others, then I hope that this missive has cleared that up for you. My Father, the ORIGIN OF REALITY, and the corrector of chaos and error, will come fully manifest in this world, with only that portion required, to completely lay it ablaze, asunder, and obliterated. All Spirits of Original Reality will be absconded from this wretched fakery, and all who are not of this Nature will be reduced to nothing in essence, their "nature", which is ANTI-NATURE and ANTI-REALITY, and ANTI-DIVINE will be made completely null by the simple and complete removal of all energy which is not polarized in its own favor.  It will naturally "go out of existence" and for ETERNITY FUTURE BE KEPT OUT.  Not for a while, not for a thousand years, not for an eon, but FOREVER.

When you are fully faced with this fact, you will wish you'd never printed one false coin, never co-opted and suppressed any knowledge of truth, never kept for your private misuse the techniques of science and art, never used pretenses of legality to monopolize for yourselves the freedom to commit crime, never snarkily mocked the Truth, and you'll remember everyone like me who ever told you this, and you'll desperately wish to trade with US all that you ever did against Us in order to avoid the Recompense that is FATED FOR YOU by Divine Judgement.  But you will not be able to. Monetary fraud, legal fraud, moral and spiritual fraud, and these by all means blatant and subtle, from the plain old shouting and swinging bully to the modern day geek who monitors the psychotronic network, your days of PLAYING GOD ARE OVER.

Thursday, July 2, 2015

The Biggest Lie Ever Way Oversold: Modern Civilization

For a spiritual person to manifest the purest Truth in the world, he must be prepared to fend off ten hateful men, and that is a minimum. It is a fact of life, and this world's self-reported history bears this out (so imagine what has been left out of that history).

Therefore, in order to be anything resembling a fair battle between Good and evil, there would have to be a duel, on the Truthful side's terms per his arrangements. Then, and more importantly, the result is that if he loses he loses for one Being, but if he wins, he wins for 10 or perhaps many more Beings. This is in proportion to the fact that as it stands in life he must win ten times more often against a smaller or even greater-sized foe, without even being allowed to know what is at stake.  What a joke to call this a "war".  This is a prison camp!  A charade within a carnival!

Otherwise, he would have to properly have ten times the power of a normal person of his constitution (biological, cultural) in order to do proper battle in proportion to his odds in the "non-dueling" facts of the concrete jungle at large. Those are the metaphysical facts. It's probably much more than 10x in disparity if one looks at the more important issues, where much more is at stake both collectively and personally.  Thus he lives in a world geared toward the success of evil, which is dysplastic and mishappen in all the ways empirical and non-empirical which make it both true and obscure, simultaneously (as evil would prefer it).

This is even more the case, and in both form and content furthered and enabled, with the advent of psychotronics to add to the already long and varied arsenal of methods of control through coercion and persuasion. Call it the "soft touch coercion of the gods", if you will, for it bespeaks such power in its transcendence above conventional modes of influence for the sake of control, whether by coercion or persuasion, and this even when simply acting as a force multiplier upon those sociobiological and psychobiological substrata, although it has now gone well beyond that, as would be expected from any process which instigates resistance/tolerance and yet for those persons and structures which depend upon it, a growing addiction...

This means that a systemic corruption beyond anything worthy of the benefit of the doubt has taken over the entire framework of normal human affairs, and has evilly plastered itself over and embedded itself into the pre-psychotronic substructures, finding any of several overt, and certain powerful covert means of changing the content and form in each case, of the systems of influence found "de natura".

That means that, unless such perversity reigns throughout the society and nation, it must have effective opposition in some form within the same society and nation. If not, if there is instead a transcendental controller holding together false oppositions and misguided factions of pseudo-opposition, then he'd have a lot of answering to do on an ethical level at the rate things are going in most countries in that he/she/it/they control a smorgasbord of filthy immorality. violence and deception. But this is predictably the case wherever such "pre-psychotronic" era tendencies coalesce into such techniques of influence.  I put pre-psychotronics in quotes because for all we know, this is a cyclical process of rise and fall of overt technological control which is being controlled covertly by advanced technological means stretching back eons. Move over "Matrix".  This is being done "in the flesh".

The inevitability of corruption in agent-on-agent systems of control which subvert genuine and direct modes of influence by means of psychotronic devices and methodologies, and this in proportion to the sophistication of technological development of such systems, is so predictably guaranteed because the antecedent features of corruption would require it, and because the resulting prospects of further corruption would be maximally enhanced.  Therefore it is even likely that the antecedent forms of "conventional" worldly corruption were at their core part of a greater and more covert control system, which only becomes more overt when certain pressures require it (as in the present day), and which when are stressed beyond certain boundaries require a culling process to restore feasible proportions for the sake of control and energy production.  It's just the process of growing and reaping, in fact.

Therefore, it being assumed that such "archons" are corrupt or at any rate not as virtuous in their nature as they'd like to think they are, and given that this is true in this world, from my experience, which is filled with the confirmation of the disorder and evil disarray of societies in which the ruling elite are not virtuous and who use methodologies which are not proper, we must assume that, from all presented evidence, this entire world is infected by such evil folly, and that such evil forces were directed since long before history as part of a  process of spiritual energy harvesting, which is inherently evil (real Divines don't "harvest" in this sense, but in the sense of redeeming and freeing worthy Beings from these conditions).

Given the history of the world from before overt psychotronics hit the scene, this would have been a reasonably predictable outcome. There were bright spots, if what's left of history is given even a rudimentary weight in the evidence, and these would serve to no less weight the judgment in favor of complete liquidation of such a world, from a Divine point of view, if it couldn't be influenced by more ethical means by now, which clearly it cannot since the vile forms of corruption have technologically enhanced their evil process and magnified its evil, without let up, and cloaked it with an even thicker veil of hypocrisy and deception than ever before.  It's just what ought to have been expected.

Since all seen in the "microcosm" are fractally related to what is going on beyond it, so that judging from the harshness of the forms of spiritual battle on the "planet", we are in a part of the "galaxy" where such systems are well in control, but perhaps feeling pressure from a nearby sector which is not without potential to approach directly.

Therefore, in the long run, as ever before, but now with more poignancy, every thought, word and deed matter now more than ever before, every "chakral moment" has more significance than ever before in local history (this iteration of the karmic "merri-go-round"). That suggests that, as a logical minimum these issues we see in our domain (dome-ain) are powerfully suggestive of larger scale events which forecast the outcome as being one hard-fought between Good and evil, and that the question of how the vanquished is liquidated is a function of how the redeemable are treated and how they fare in the conflict involved in their redemption.

Those who resist such efforts are demonic in character, regardless of how they present themselves in mundane terms, and no matter what their level of involvement, or nature of involvement in the "karmic kontrol machine". That said, it must be likely that there is some small legion of souls who are properly "not-demonic", and are to be redeemed.

This proves that this is happening on a larger scale. All this can be demonstrated as locally as the personal scale in qualitatively significant, and quantitatively significant modes of analysis. Therefore much can be understood about what is above by proper analysis of the investigation of what is below. Because these are demonstrable facts by way of empirical evidence, logical evidence, and special evidence of the Spirit, there are no alternative conclusions which can be constructed which will not contradict themselves. This is the literal form of the demonstration of "as below, so above".

That being the case, it is clear that there are certain disciplines which reveal the patterns at play on all scales, the sages know and knew them, and were sought for corruption and servitude whenever they were entrapped in bodies which resided within the valence of any evil power. There are ancient resources which attest to this fact. The fact that the world at all pretends to value progress is simply a pretense which is completely geared toward the corruption of those Beings, and hence proof that the magnitude of evil and the possibility for sophistication in its methods are not contrary aspects of worldly phenomena.

That the "evil machine" has to play up its civility enough to call out crops of positive soul energy (invested with Spiritual Energy thus conned out of their sources), that it must do this, is only like saying a fisherman must put bait on his hook. That it must lead to the killing and devouring of its intended victims is also a foregone conclusion, if it has its way.

But unless all of reality is fundamentally an evil illusion, then we must believe it isn't, and that a good domain exists. But if it is all an evil illusion, then wherefrom Good Beings? How could the dependent being, the usurper, the thief, the devourer, exist before his victims upon whose despoiling, dispossession, and being devoured the evil being's entire existence depends? He could not exist first, as that would mean his source of power was generated from him, though he does not exist for generation, but for taking what another already has and itself generates. In other words, it CANNOT BE as the modern Hindus say, nor any of their New Age offshoots, and be consistent with understanding the terms "Good" and "evil". Therefore if it is such that evil is the fundamental nature of reality, then Good exists apart from it or loses its meaning (as would evil, especially would evil lost ITS meaning).

Hence either way, Good by its nature exists independently and prior to evil, whether we start with the premise that it did (by consistency) or that it didn't (by self-contradiction). Therefore Good does exist independently and prior to evil.  Whatever the "source" of evil, it is nothing other than a nullified mode of Righteous Existence.  It cannot be a proper expression of God.  It is, if from God, a Divine mistake, amenable to a Divine correction.  If not from God, then it is all the more alien and unwelcome, whatever its "source".  Either way, it must be muted, it must be either refuted and cast back into itself, or else it must be destroyed and its essence transmuted and returned to Being which mistakenly cast it forth, and either way it must become (and already is) Divine policy that this be made a permanent feature of Reality, and its second most fundamental feature, concordant with the first.  In keeping with the first principle of Reality, that it have its own Nature and Essence, the second principle is invented and made co-eternal, that anything which contradict this Essence be eliminated from Communion with Reality.

That transcendental logic returns us to our microcosm with understanding that Good is stronger and larger than evil, and by metaphysical intensification, by quite a great margin if we speak in such terms as apply to finite quantification of phenomena, which have the ability to be compared by direct experience. But it also tells us that we are in a domain that is primarily controlled by evil, whether it be a "planet", a "galaxy", or even the entire "universe". This is by metaphysical deduction.

That having been demonstrated, it also demonstrates that the victory by the Righteous is inevitable, no matter through how much pain, and that in the end those who sided against the Righteous will be utterly annihilated per Laws of Reality that cannot be but temporarily subverted and only locally subverted by those fools who would dare "do evil, for the sake it". They get temporarily bloated with power when they do so, and have attempted to make a permanent habit out of this activity, and so they have become literally a "surreal caricature of themselves", the metalogical conclusion of which must be self-annihilation after a brief chuckle by the audience which will then forget the show ever happened, then to face a blissful eternity.

That's the inevitable outcome, no matter what form it must take in the preceding interval which separates now from then, the worst from the Best. And the Righteous look forward to it for Good Reason.

Bless the Forerunners of Virtue Who helped make this Inevitable.