Absolute vs. Relative Free Will

[Michael Paul]

I think a found a potential solution to the dilemma of free will. From the perspective of the body-mind and/or separate self, free will is an illusion. This is the relative or personal view. However, from the perspective of the One Absolute Consciousness (this is what we truly are at our most fundamental core), which is primarily impersonal to the body-mind, we have total freedom or free will. It’s just that this freedom does not belong to any individual, separate ego. In other words, Consciousness is and has always been in control.

Feel free to tell me what you think of this.

 

[SoonHei]

@Michael Paul just as your hands or feet may think they are in control (from their relative POV), but it was always the body or what's conventionally known as YOU - running the show.

 

same way, Michael, Meta-Man, SoonHei are the hands/feet of the infinite body of consciousness 

[Wisebaxter]

So what you guys are saying is, we do have Free Will, it's just not the free will of a separate self? But, for all intents and purposes, free will does exist? This feels right to me as I can have the experience of setting an intention. That's in my direct experience. God must be a creator right? Surely to have free will is to be a creator. At the same time there are things happening that feel outside of my control. Perhaps with more consciousness you can see how you're actually creating everything constantly, like Leo says. 

[The observer]

It's funny, because from God's perspective, his will is free and the human will is not. While from the human perspective, the human will is free but God's is not.

The notion of freedom is problematic in and of itself, because to say that something is free equals to saying that something else which contrasts the former, is not. So, as long as we think that there is a God and that there is a human, we'll always have a partial freedom, because whether we identify as God or as humans, we'll have limitations from a certain perspective compared to the other.

The ultimate freedom is the Oneness. The ultimate freedom is no-freedom, and that's exactly what this is. You are free as a human being, but you believe otherwise. And you are limited to Love as God, but you believe otherwise. The ultimate freedom is not found in thought.

Also, another problem with the notion of freedom, is that it already assumes captivity. Such as, there's life in captivity, that's not free. And there's life outside of captivity, that's free. So, you must experience or at least see limitations in order for you to see or experience freedom. You can already see that this is a never ending game. YIN-YANG.

[LfcCharlie4]

Yep, only Absolute Will/ Gods will.

As you say saying there is free will or isn’t free will from a separate self POV is still a belief, either way. I feel someone who believes they are a separate entity, is better off believing they have free will until they get into Non-Duality, or that could wreak havoc lol.

However, from a “higher” POV The issue of free will becomes irrelevant, as their is just this, and this is it. 
 

Reading this from Francis Lucille makes me want to read his book haha, and I haven’t read a non-dual book in a while!

It also summarises Absolute Freedom so well, after all, we all love freedom! 

 

 

[LfcCharlie4]

@Meta-Man The hero himself. 

[Nahm]

Sleeping or lucid dreaming. 

[zeroISinfinity]

Great return to sleep and end of suffering. 

[lmfao]

A formulation for free will in the domain of the relative can be found in "compatabilism", Daniel Dennett for example. Seen under a good light, I see this framing of things as a pragmatic/grounded approach to it. If what I value and am interested in is exploration of life, then theoretical knowledge that yes I am free or no I am not free does nothing for me.  Like either way, my life and existence is unchanged by my conversation with you about what might or might not exist. 

Of course I see the objection. Denying free will can be a tool for acceptance and love of others. If it works in that way for you, then all power to you. If you so wish, it's certainly a good line of inquiry/debate when talking to let's say, a conservative sort of person strongly bought into moral absolutism. Thinking everyone who's poor or a criminal is fundamentally culpable in this narrow minded view of good vs bad. Giving people empathy for the upbringing and genes of others.

Edited May 9, 2020 by lmfao