Rhizome 4/8/16 from a discourse w/ Chris Doveton and Christopher Vaughn on the issue of Free Will:
First of all, guys (and I apologize for the “dear diary” preamble (I always find it hard to get myself to do an immersion in anything but philosophy (such as art or literature –both fiction and poetry (because philosophy tends to offer me something to write my 4 to 500 words about every day. And my present immersion in David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest (the audiobook version and 55+ hours of listening pleasure (of which I’m about 14 hours into (has pretty much confirmed that suspicion. Still I am constantly nagging at myself to do so because, having found myself flailing my legs and arms in a sea of abstraction, I can’t help but conclude, at some point or other, I really need to get back to something a little more concrete.
That said, this experience has brought me to realize that not having anything to say about what I’m reading may be an advantage in that it gives me time to actually engage in discourses with others –something else I’m always nagging at myself to do. The icing on the cake (and the cherry on top (is that it gives me all that more license to bring more literature into my process which is important in that I’ve always been more interested in being a good writer than telling anyone what the truth is. You have to remember that I started out as a musician.
Anyway:
“I go with the argument that thoughts are internal language symbolizing and processing feeling information. I take the determinist position that we have no control over any thought, it simply issues from us or we somehow register it or receive it - we might be no more than radios with thoughts passing through as waves which we interpret and modulate into imagery - just jammin’ on a rhizome.” –Chris
And your “just jammin’ on a rhizome” is what makes your approach to materialism refreshing and a lot more impressive than many of the hardcore materialists I have encountered on these boards –most of which I ended up in a state of bloodlust with because of their condescending attitude as they flashed around terms like “objectivity” and “the scientific method” while making general statements about the world that fell outside of the perimeters and criteria of both. And I’m guessing (hoping even (that the reason for this is that you have (much as I have (gotten comfortable with the materialist model via Rorty and Deleuze: mainly because it works with the model and manifesto Rorty and Deleuze present us with.
For myself, I embrace it conditionally in the sense of hypothetically accepting it for the sake of Rorty’s model of creative discourse or Deleuze’s (w/Guatarri (model of desiring production.
That said, I would offer some points on the issue I hope you will consider. First of all, I would argue that those that hold out for the possibility of Free Will (a residual of Cartesian dualism (need to stop talking about Free Will and start working in terms of what can start as a participating self, then reduce it to the notion of Participation which says nothing about the extent to which the self participates in it. Once we have done that, we can actually argue (via the science of chaotics (for something not part of the determined universe you describe that emerges in the non-linear (and evolutionary (feedback loop between the body, the brain (as well as the mind that haunts it, and the environment it is attempting to negotiate. For myself, I see the possibility for Participation in that effable and evanescent point at which the determined transforms into the random and the random transforms into the determined.
Just putting it out there.
“Things become a little awkward if our thinking is entirely determined or without any choice of freedom for if freedom is an illusory concept what would the need be of this illusory concept ever appearing in our thoughts? Furthermore, it appears self defeating to say that we can realize that our thoughts are determined, for apparently this has not been actually realized but is merely an imposed thought. Then why should this imposed thought be true? If freedom is illusory why isn’t determinism an illusion?” –Christopher
This is an impressive argument, Christopher. I would only (and respectfully (caution you that it approaches a strategy similar to that of skeptic’s paradox as an argument against the skeptic. The argument runs that one can hardly say that there are no absolutes since to do so is to present yet another absolute. And the response to this from the skeptic would be that there is a big difference between saying one lives in a world in which there are no absolutes and actually living in one. The problem for me is that the paradox is primarily a semantic phenomenon that doesn’t always translate into existential statements about how the world actually works. And we have to consider the possibility that Chris saying he lives in a determined world is different than actually living in one.
But hopefully we’ll get the chance to iron this all out together. Once again: 14 hours in to 55+ hours of listening pleasure.