re: clarification (discussion from below)

>>>I am not bothered by the idea that there
>>>is no individual free will, I just don’t
>>>agree with it. I think that the reason we
>>>are manifested here is to explore individual
>>>free will and how our collective self can
>>>learn from our interactions in an unplanned way.

I think you are still stuck in a false dichotomy.
Your logic goes like this. If option A were not true,
then we’d have option B which I don’t agree with and is
ultimately inherently wrong, so therefore of course
option A is true. This is false logic. If option B
is not true, this does not imply A if other options exist.

>>>If our (individual) life process is pre-planned
>>>by our collective self, then it would not be a process.

False.

For one, I don’t like the term “collective self”, because
this implies that the larger self I’ve been discussing is
just a cute way of saying “collective”. This is not the case.
The “larger-you” I’m referring to is still mostly individualized.

For two, the idea that something pre-planned is not
able to be processual, is likewise false. A running treadmill
pre-plans your walking, but nonetheless if you get on the thing
you are going through the process of exercise. Moreover, the
process of being on the thing changes you. By “you” I
mean both the lower-you, who is directly being altered in the
physical realm, AND the larger-you that gets the
transmission of the physical experience.

>>>If our life process is being run spontaneously
>>>by the collective self and the individual self
>>>is learning from it, it is a one-way process,
>>>the individual is acting out orders and the
>>>collective is not learning anything in return.

False. The larger-you gets a direct transmission of
the actual physical experience of the theoretical
knowledge it has. This deepens and enriches the
“current” understanding that the larger-you has.
I thought I said this earlier.

>>>Individual free will (in my opinion) is a combination
>>>of collective “self-awareness” (that comes from
>>>the collective/ the One), and individuality
>>>(the qualities of the five shen) –

Now I see why you are confused and why your mind
is giving you a false dichotomy. It appears to me
that you have completely accepted as fact
Peter Novak’s Binary Soul Doctrine,
and are trying to apply it across the board.

The lower self may *indeed* be a binary soul model
as presented by Novak consisting of two components:
a self-aware half, and a personal/dreaming half
[speaking fast and loose; I’m familiar with the model,
but I don’t want to go on for two pages in order to
be precise].

In fact, I personally agree with a version
of it FOR THE LOWER PHYSICAL SELF when it is run
through a Daoist lens.

HOWEVER, *regardless* of what constitutes the
lower physical self, this does not describe the constitution
of the higher larger version of self that I’m referring to.
I’m speaking of something on a different vibrational level.
It is *not* just a mirror image of the “self-aware,
personality-less half” in the binary soul doctrine.
The larger self that is organizing the script has
a muted personality and some kind of subtle unified shen
presence.

In other words, feel free to apply the binary soul
doctrine to the lower-you, but not to the larger-you.
The larger-you is a completely different animal.

Even if you weren’t applying the binary soul doctrine
globally, I’m betting it is the source of your binary
thinking, or at least why you seem to only acknowledge
two choices. Even in yin-yang theory, there is a
central “third” yuan core that lies between the two extremes.

>>>there is a gap in vibrational frequency between the
>>>collective and the individual that allows us to
>>>function with an “individual will”, and which gives
>>>us the impression of (separated) conscious awareness
>>>here. Of course, the minute you start going into the
>>>shen, elementals, soul forces, oversouls and causal
>>>chaos-unity, you see that we are a collective.
>>>Most people remain unaware of the collective
>>>consciousness because of its more impersonal nature.

So you admit that independence is just an illusion?
Then you are halfway to seeing what I’m talking about.

WITH BLINDERS UP, *of course* everything we are doing down
here is free will. We are making choices after all.

BUT DROPPING THE BLINDERS OF CONFUSION, we see that the
choices we A PRIORI considered to be free independent
choices were in fact already chosen *for* “us” (i.e.
the lower self) by the larger-self. The larger-self
is STILL you (hence it is free will on a different level),
BUT is NOT operating in linear time.

Operating outside of linear time,
the larger-you has already made the choices
(the choices being the “free will”, but on the larger-you level).

Then the choices that we appear to be making are simply
the ones already pre-written (by “ourselves”).

In other words, you’ve already made the choice.
Now you just have to understand the choice you already made.

Do not make the mistake of assuming that when you go
up the vibrational ladder that things that exist there
still are subject to the same linear time flow that we have here.
In the “now”, our higher-you has extent into both our
past and our future. That’s how it knows what you are
going to do, before you do it. But this is no
surprise as the lower-you is just the physical projection
of higher-you into linear time. And I mean the most
literal version of the word “projection” here.

Steven

>>>TRUE FALSE
>>>you shouild examine your own dichotomies
>>>before placing them on me.

By the rules of simple mathematical logic,
if you construct an argument consisting of
propositions containing implications
such “if . . ., then . . .”; or absolute
statements such as “can not” etc.,
then such implications by necessity fall
under the rules of true/false logic.

Argue with me on tenets of spirituality
and we can have a fun debate. Argue
with me about mathematics and you will lose. 🙂

>>>I have read Novak’s book but have long since
>>>stopped trying to apply it exactly to the Daoist model.

Good. As you yourself pointed out, there are some
useful concepts, but they don’t translate A for B
into the Daoist picture.

>>>I also had no intention of applying linear time
>>>to the collective self – where did that come from
>>>in your thinking?

But you do it all the time!

EXAMPLES:

“The LING (unified personal shen) responds to situations,
and also influences situations that ocur”

This implies a linear structure of time. Situation happens,
then LING responds. Or LING does something, then situation
here is influenced. This is a cause-effect structure.
This; then that. Linear.

“are still happening spontaneously”

This implies not happening in the past or future,
but only in the now. This is a fixed referent to a moment
in our linear time. “Spontaneous” has no intrinsic meaning
outside of linear time.

>>>I think you are talking about the LING, the unified
>>>personal shen that are just over the vibrational gap
>>>into the pre-natal.

No, I’m not talking about the pre-natal.
I discussed this earlier.

But rather than continuously correcting every instance
of this in what you wrote afterward, I’ll just pretend
it has already been corrected for efficiency.

>>>While I am talking about the larger COLLECTIVE IMPERSONAL
>>>forces of nature, the pure virtue elementals, planetary soul
>>>archetypes and the oversouls of the stellar mind…they
>>>CANNOT SEE into the slower vibration of the material plane,
>>>which is why we function here with the IMPRESSION of
>>>separation (I am aware that it is not full separation –
>>>nothing is fully separated).

I agree with this analysis.
Of course, the collective impersonal forces are
not what I’m talking about, as you yourself realized.

>>>I am still of the opinion that these learning events,
>>>even though they are multi-dimensional, are still
>>>happening spontaneously, and do not have pre-planned
>>>outcomes (although the LING has a big say in what happens),
>>>because of the need for learning from the interactions.
>>>If the ever-present consciousness of our collective (
>>>non-personal) self is running the show, and knows what
>>>will happen at all times then what is the point of having
>>>a learning experience?

Because the actual physical participation provides insight
that the mere theoretical understanding can not provide. This
is in the tennis analogy I gave earlier. I can have a
complete theoretical understanding of the game, but if I
actually get on the court and play I’ll understand it in
a newer and a deeper way. THIS REMAINS TRUE regardless of
whether or not I happen to be psychic/omniscient and
happen to know the games’ outcome. Knowing the games’
outcome and what actually transpires during the game
does not diminish the experience of playing.

You seem to be arguing that if you already know how the
game goes, then there is no value in playing. I.E. Try
telling that to the millions of people playing Sudoku that
they are stupid because you know the end result is
a full tableau of nine digits that is already given
in the back of the book. It is the process of doing it
that is the important thing. For one, it is simple pleasure
and fun; for two, it provides growth in the sense of
sharpened reasoning.

The fact that the outcome is pre-planned is IRRELEVANT.

>>>If all the motions are pre-planned but we are just
>>>running through them in physicality so that the LING
>>>(or the higher collective self for that matter)can
>>>experience it, the “newness” of only the physical
>>>is not enough, it is a dead interaction without the
>>>combination of spontaneous learning through the
>>>whole spectrum.

This is purely your opinion of course.
I don’t see it as being dead in any way,
as I’ve explained before. Aside from everything I’ve
written above as in the tennis and the Sudoku examples,
the lower self does not know that its “choices”
fall matter-of-factly in lock-step with the script
already written–and even if it did, it does not
change the experience. YOU already made the choices,
now it is just a matter of the lower self understanding
them and experiencing them first-hand.

I state again: The lower self is just the physical
projection into linear time of the larger self.

OK, I just had an “a-ha” moment. I think
I have an analogy that will explain the situation better.

Analogy:
Suppose you go back in time and meet up with an
earlier version of yourself. Keeping your identity
secret via some kind of disguise you go up to
this earlier version of yourself. You tell this
earlier version of yourself that you know exactly
what it is going to do and what choices it will
make. This version of you says “really? did you
know I was going to do this?”, and then
your “earlier you” jumps up and down on the floor
ten times. To which–you in disguise–reply
“of course I did; you are me, and I know
I did that/you were going to do that” To which
the earlier version of you–to prove it has
free will–tries to do different random spontaneous
actions to demonstrate that it makes it own choices.
You (in disguise), start laughing, and point
out that you knew it would do that, and point out a
diary record in which you had recorded these
activities with stunning accuracy. Now suppose you
leave this earlier point in time. Should the
earlier version of you–assuming it was convinced
you were the real deal–just give up nihilistically
and decide to not do anything at all? Of course, not.
But supposing the earlier you had decided to give up,
then in the same way that would have likewise been
recorded in the diary as well.

The larger self/smaller self dynamic is like this.

In fact, the analogy may not be too far from the truth
because the larger self is not in linear time. So
what constitutes “now” for the lower self, is
for the larger self considered “already done”,
“doing”, and “yet to be done” all in the same “instant”.

But as I said, this fact should not matter to the
lower self, because it can’t see beyond the now and
everything it experiences seems to be completely
original and originating from itself. The underlying
truth is really irrelevant from its viewpoint.

This is what I mean by the choices having already been
made, and all that is left to do is to understand them
and grow from them.

The “growing” is obvious for the lower self, as it
experiences things “new” in an ever-developing sense.
The “growing” for the larger self is the transmission
it is receiving/already received/will yet to receive
from the physical experience–which extends and deepens
the theoretical knowledge it already has.

S