Rhizome 4/9/16: continued coverage on the ongoing (a term, BTW, discouraged by Strunk and White’s Elements of Style (and may the wrath of Professor Strunk rest in its grave (discourse between me, Chris Doveton, and Christopher Vaughan on the issue of Free Will (what I prefer to call Participation (in the context of Rorty’s pragmatic model of discourse which, to me, has overlaps with Deleuze and Guatarri’s model of desiring production:
“Just want to pick up on a point made by Christopher Vaughan- “…if freedom is an illusory concept what would be the need of this illusory concept ever appearing in our thoughts?” I would suggest as a pragmatist that we need these illusions- they are part of our mythological imagination.” –Chris
“Do you mean that we are not happy with accepting we are totally controlled by something else and so we imagine we are free? But who on earth would be happy to do that? Then happiness would be impossible!
Surely it would be much more productive to actually be free.
You agree there is such a thing as thought and you agree we participate in them, that is, we can think them, although you say we do not produce them, but then why don’t I just produce thoughts myself and be actually free instead of accepting the rather unsatisfactory and pointless illusion of being free and thinking what something else is thinking?”
First of all, guys, in the narrative running through my mind (my fancy (while reading this interchange, I find myself approaching this rhizome as some kind of referee. This is disconcerting to me in that by approaching it in that capacity, I could come off as some kind of final authority which I can assure you is not my intent. In other words, anything that follows is just me adding my two cents. Anyway (and I apologize for repeating the already stated –it is strictly a matter of the continuity of my process justified by the present influence of David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest:
“Just want to pick up on a point made by Christopher Vaughan- “…if freedom is an illusory concept what would be the need of this illusory concept ever appearing in our thoughts?” I would suggest as a pragmatist that we need these illusions- they are part of our mythological imagination.” –Chris
I would add to this, Chris, the popular theory from an evolutionary perspective: that our experience of consciousness may have been an evolutionary adaption in that it was what gave us an advantage in having some sense of what it was we were trying to keep going –that which (if we are to accept Dawkin’s theory about the selfish gene (is the conscious expression of some subconscious imperative to sustain our genetic makeup. So I would hesitate before totally dismissing your take on it. At the same time, I would hesitate to dismiss Christopher’s argument for Free Will (what I would prefer to refer to think of as Participation (because I can’t help but feel, due to the model of an emergent property I described in rhizome 4/8/16:
“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.”
:it seems to me (for reasons I hope to articulate on throughout this discourse, Chris, that the semi-eliminative materialism and strict determinism you are backing results from a linear model of causality as compared to the feedback loops of causality I am seeing. This is why, for instance, the homunculus argument against Free Will is so effective in that comes off (because of the linear model of causality (as an infinite regress. But more on that later as I am contractually obligated to get to Christopher’s point:
“Do you mean that we are not happy with accepting we are totally controlled by something else and so we imagine we are free? But who on earth would be happy to do that? Then happiness would be impossible!
Surely it would be much more productive to actually be free.
You agree there is such a thing as thought and you agree we participate in them, that is, we can think them, although you say we do not produce them, but then why don’t I just produce thoughts myself and be actually free instead of accepting the rather unsatisfactory and pointless illusion of being free and thinking what something else is thinking?”
What I would ask you to consider here (via Spinoza), Christopher, is that happiness is a cumulative effect (a kind of narrative even (of pleasant experiences: what Spinoza would refer to as joyful affects. But you are right (in the sense of me agreeing with you (when you say:
“Surely it would be much more productive to actually be free. “
I mean in terms of the evolutionary model and imperative I am offering, it would be far more productive to actually have a consciousness w/ free will (or, once again, Participation (than an illusion of one. But we have to remember that we’re mainly making a deductive argument here. At same time, I find myself clearly in your corner when you say:
“You agree there is such a thing as thought and you agree we participate in them, that is, we can think them, although you say we do not produce them, but then why don’t I just produce thoughts myself and be actually free instead of accepting the rather unsatisfactory and pointless illusion of being free and thinking what something else is thinking?”
I ask once again: if consciousness and Free Will (Participation (is an illusion, what exactly is it an illusion to?