In the previous post discussing the potential roots of "will", we concluded that potential can be an individualized source for "will". Before responding to the next question I would like to respond to one readers comment.
They asked whether my conclusion, that potential was the source for "will", implied that only an external force can create the will for x?
I think so. Probably because ones will stems from the deepest core of their humanity; the only thing that can precede that depth is something that precedes the totality of their existence. A source that is outside of their body and mind, say their parents. (This jives with the CHABAD Chassidic perspective which explains [ for example Torahs Menachem 1951, portion on Shelach] that the spies [meraglim] were the impetus for the entrance of the nascent Jewish people into Israel as they represented the initial awakening from above which engendered the awakening from below).
Now back to the underlying question how far can "will" take us?
I would like to elaborate on this question.
For example: what if one imagines that they have tremendous potential, and directs their will towards fulfilling that potential. Perhaps they jump at every opportunity to develop it and let it blossom. The question is does that will convert potential into existent? In other words, if your perceived potential is simply a rational characterization of an irrational narcissist delusion (imposed on you as your potential), can one elevate the delusion to reality? Or should the Rabbinic maxim, mentioned in part one of this series, be read as "ONLY nothing stands in the way of will" –even will cannot validate delusion?
For the astute reader there is a difficulty at the heart of this analysis. Potential is by its very nature buried and can/is only glimpsed via flashes (or perceptions) of unique activity. Put otherwise, it is nearly impossible to discern real potential from delusional perceptions of potential. It is for this reason that delusional evaluations of potential can create the will to unrelentingly pursue an unrealistic goal. Often the delusion-driven individual only discovers the sheer impossibility, or impracticality, of the goal when the goal is in sight. Years of wasted will, premised on false potential.
Thus the second question can never really be answered. After all potential is inherently beyond the persons very essence- it only exists external to the individual. We may never know whether only people with real potential can actualize it via their will or if even those that internalize pure delusions can actualize them with their will.
We may never know, but there are real and often tragic issues that arise from this existential ambiguity.
All of these issues stem from the unfortunate state of our society and its unwillingness to forgive because of its aversion to introspection on a societal level (though many are too willing to delve into the impenetrable depths of their own unconscious). Society, and even family, is often unwilling to accept that a completely normal person can be so delusional, BECAUSE of the nature of potential. Both its source in the expectations of others and in the fact that it can validated only AFTER its actualization.
The individual who may awake from the externally imposed delusion is beset by depreciating criticisms. This criticism mislabels that dawning of rationality on the deluded as, “oh what wasted potential, he/she was almost there and they failed”.
However unjust, this conclusion has certain merit.
1. The deluded pursued their delusion with such admirable vigor that their share commitment convinced others of the reality of their potential. 2. If we accept the first interpretation of the above maxim (nothing stands in the way of will), than whether the person is delusional or not has no bearing, if the person wills it, it will become a reality -the fact that will is premised on delusional potential is immaterial.
The implication of this second justification are rather frightening. Not only because it justifies social engineering (placing children in a system and then dictating what they should will, even if for that student the "will" is premised on delusion), but also because it implies that everyone can be the best. After all it just takes the will, however delusional.
What happens to an individual who is subjected to these types of expectations in school and out? If every element in their life "affirms" their great potential; if every “glimpse” is highlighted and embraced while every slip-up and weakness is covered-up or “extracted” from them. That person may grow up and completely internalize the externally attributed delusion. To the extent that they become the biggest advocates of said delusion. Ignoring or externalizing ever sign to the contrary and magnifying and internalizing every triumph (self-serving bias). Then the day comes that rationality returns and they recognize that the goal was achievable/desirable only as part of their delusion (the goal may even be at the heart of the delusion). Then they realize that the goal is not what they want, it is not their will –the will itself is delusional.
Yet how do they know? How do they know that it is all a delusion, maybe it is deep seated laziness, weakness in the time of trial, perhaps an excuse for failure?
If they do follow through with their delusion, they will always doubt and be the object of doubt. Is it worth getting married if you doubt that future of that marriage, to be divorced to know that your original doubt was not simply an excuse?
Or perhaps they may ask:
What if the very word potential is an external means of control, a means for society to label and influence, to purify and justify the delusion? To create a means to control and engineer the will of the individual –"nothing" that dictates ones will? In that case they may cognitively internalize that their potential is really an externally applied delusion, and will not feel the pain of failure because the bases of their will was false. Thus their will and their desires are not in conflict
This is a terrible cycle that many enter. The struggle with external expectations that have been so internalized that their lack of fulfilling these expectations destroy their feelings of self-worth, purpose, and existence.
On the other hand, if society, communities, and families didn’t impose a sense of potential -a sense of direction for ones will, then we would never achieve, society would not be inspired to "will".
All of this hedges on this out-of-body non-existent potential!
If only society, family, and the individual could find the balance between inspiring the will to will and recognizing the ethereal nature of potential. We should accept that we often impose meaningless misguided potential on the person. We should acknowledge the obvious: many normal people do not fulfill these false expectations, not because their will has failed them but because we have failed their will.
The way things stand now many experience the curse of unfulfilled potential.
Showing posts with label chassidus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chassidus. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
The Curse of Unfulfilled Potential: (1) "The will to will"
The CHABAD masters discuss the relationship between will/want (ratzun) and enjoyment/pleasure (tanug). One way to frame the following conversation is to ask “which one plays the role of cause in the relationship?” Do I will because I enjoy or do I enjoy because I want? The masters respond that will precedes enjoyment, to the extent that it can dictate that one enjoy what they previously despised. For example, I will to be healthy so I begin to do that which I despise, exercise. Eventually I begin to enjoy exercise.
The role of will in the individuals life is not confined to its relationship to enjoyment. On the contrary, the great teachers of old state emphatically “nothing stands before will” (ain dovar omed lifnai razton). Thus the above CHABAD dialectic comes as no surprise -not only does ones specific desires reflect will so does every other potential human experience.
Two Questions
The first question:
How/can one develop the will for something, “the will to will”?
This question assumes that there is a force that precedes will. To better understand exactly what we are talking about here let me begin with what we are not talking about.
EXAMPLE. Freud argued that all our actions are dictated by the pleasure drive. Thus the reason why we will/want sex is because it is in our nature, it is who we are (for those chassidus mavins this is akin to etzem ha’nefesh). Even though this drive does proceed will, it is not what we are looking for because it is a natural tendency. Our question is how/if the individual can will to will –by choice not by human nature.
The next potential response to our question is potential.
Potential as means to creating the will, it is like the hyperactive child who is constantly criticized, internalizes the criticism, and becomes that bad person everyone has declared them to be.
But let us apply it more concretely to our search for a will to will.
Imagine or remember.
You are born to a family rife with intellectuals, writers, and orators. From the day you are born there is talk of your extraordinary potential. You are subjected to these types of expectations, in school and out. Every element in your life dictates to you your great potential; every “glimpse” of greatness is highlighted and embraced while every slipup and weakness is covered-up or even “extracted” from you.
You may very well grow up and completely internalize the externally attributed beliefs. To the extent that you become the biggest advocate of the said delusion. Ignoring or externalizing ever sign to the contrary and magnifying and internalizing every triumph ( for psychology buffs self-serving bias).
If you internalize the attributed potential you then have the will to will. The internalized potential preceeds and creates the will.
Here is an illustration.
Let us say that your mother is a famous writer and your father an extraordinary journalist. As you grow older and begin to understand the comments that have most probably been directed towards your family you begin to delve into writing and “discover” that you are good at it. Never mind your terrible grammar and nonsensical thesis. As you are constantly surrounded by affirming voices declaring your great potential, and you conclude that all you need is a little more practice. Your will to become a great writer, is great, after all you have the potential. You tirelessly pursue your work, and confirm others beliefs that you will in fact be a great writer. Your potential focuses your will to the extent that now you have completely internalized the external beliefs of others, and by virtue of your actions become the greatest advocate of your will to become a great writer.
Question number two:
Yet how far can will take the individual especially if it is inspired by a narcissist fantasy, sans potential ,imposed by an over bearing parent who ?
In the next post I will the address this (corollary) question.
The role of will in the individuals life is not confined to its relationship to enjoyment. On the contrary, the great teachers of old state emphatically “nothing stands before will” (ain dovar omed lifnai razton). Thus the above CHABAD dialectic comes as no surprise -not only does ones specific desires reflect will so does every other potential human experience.
Two Questions
The first question:
How/can one develop the will for something, “the will to will”?
This question assumes that there is a force that precedes will. To better understand exactly what we are talking about here let me begin with what we are not talking about.
EXAMPLE. Freud argued that all our actions are dictated by the pleasure drive. Thus the reason why we will/want sex is because it is in our nature, it is who we are (for those chassidus mavins this is akin to etzem ha’nefesh). Even though this drive does proceed will, it is not what we are looking for because it is a natural tendency. Our question is how/if the individual can will to will –by choice not by human nature.
The next potential response to our question is potential.
Potential as means to creating the will, it is like the hyperactive child who is constantly criticized, internalizes the criticism, and becomes that bad person everyone has declared them to be.
But let us apply it more concretely to our search for a will to will.
Imagine or remember.
You are born to a family rife with intellectuals, writers, and orators. From the day you are born there is talk of your extraordinary potential. You are subjected to these types of expectations, in school and out. Every element in your life dictates to you your great potential; every “glimpse” of greatness is highlighted and embraced while every slipup and weakness is covered-up or even “extracted” from you.
You may very well grow up and completely internalize the externally attributed beliefs. To the extent that you become the biggest advocate of the said delusion. Ignoring or externalizing ever sign to the contrary and magnifying and internalizing every triumph ( for psychology buffs self-serving bias).
If you internalize the attributed potential you then have the will to will. The internalized potential preceeds and creates the will.
Here is an illustration.
Let us say that your mother is a famous writer and your father an extraordinary journalist. As you grow older and begin to understand the comments that have most probably been directed towards your family you begin to delve into writing and “discover” that you are good at it. Never mind your terrible grammar and nonsensical thesis. As you are constantly surrounded by affirming voices declaring your great potential, and you conclude that all you need is a little more practice. Your will to become a great writer, is great, after all you have the potential. You tirelessly pursue your work, and confirm others beliefs that you will in fact be a great writer. Your potential focuses your will to the extent that now you have completely internalized the external beliefs of others, and by virtue of your actions become the greatest advocate of your will to become a great writer.
Question number two:
Yet how far can will take the individual especially if it is inspired by a narcissist fantasy, sans potential ,imposed by an over bearing parent who ?
In the next post I will the address this (corollary) question.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Free Choice vs. Providence: Can/How Do they Coexist? (II)
Disclaimer: The following is a highly incoherent series of ideas drawn from a number of times and places. It is NOT an easy read.
The “Irrational Perspective” sees the finite/rational human attempt to comprehend the infinite/irrational nature of providence, and how choice fits into this larger “scheme”, akin to one attempting to draw a picture of an undiscovered galaxy, it is mere speculation.
Example A.
A higher force controls EVERYTHING i.e. providence and knows what the human will choose, and at the same time we do have choice! It is simply a wonder of existence, it is incomprehensible it is irrational. Thus Hitler had a choice of whether or not to kill over 6 million Jews but the higher force was already aware of the ultimate result, yet the final solution could have come about if it was chosen. Providence and choice, together. How? It’s a wonder!
Example B.
Another way of understanding this is the Jewish and Sufi notion of a holy man who can see the future. What is behind this assertion, how can one see know the future before it occurs, unless they can exist both in the future and the present? Indeed this is the Jewish conception of the Holy/Righteous person (tzaddik). What makes a person Holy is the subjugation and elevation of their body/animal to their soul the source of their existence (for more on what is meant here by “existence” please see post “Is Soul the Global Consciousness”). This source is not physical, it does not have mass or take up physical space nor is subject to concepts like time.
This last point is exactly what allows the tzaddik to see the future. Because the tzaddik is so close to this source they can consciously access this sources reality where the past present and future exist as one, and are not subject the rational notion of time. In essence the tzaddik can see the future because they have conscious access to a place where the future is indistinguishable from the present. It time is a place where time does not exist.
On the other hand, choice is a reflection of our need as rational beings to order our lives, through time. Choice is a result of time; the future requires us to make choices now, for later. For example, is it a good idea to invest three years and over 100,000 dollars towards legal education? This question is in itself a manifestation of time as it’s an attempt to predict the future, likewise time is a result of our need to rationalize, because we are human. Humans, unlike the rest of nature make choices based on the future (human>rational>time>choice).
I’m tempted to continue this line of reasoning but I’m already losing myself.
Providence is above time, there is no future thus choice and result -choice and providence- occur simultaneously. But they both occur. Is this a rational explanation? No, but then again the second view sees the answer as irrational, but that doesn’t mean the path to discovering the irrational need not be explored rationally.
CONVERSATION:
Still according to the above view the answer exists in the irrational realm where time and space do not exist. Yet our choices are made here in the finite realm of time and space?! This question opens up a can of worms but here we go.
The potential explanation is understanding that every organism is made of two elements, the infinite clothed in finite.
1. Our mass, and that which we use to sustain that mass, food, money, time, etc. (external)
2. That which allows our mass to exist, and grow. The ex nihilo of creation, the source of material that made up the mass of the big bang. (internal)
A question can further help us understand the ramifications and relevance of this distinction .
Why is it that all live mass returns to dirt after it dies?
Because there are two forces in play the mass/physical, and the limits that come along with that. Then there is what gives that mass life and allows it be alive. When that unseen force leaves the mass the mass eventually returns to the anonymity.
The point is that just because we are unable to access this level of “no time” does not mean it doesn’t exist here within every one of us. Indeed we know of its existence from rational questions, that lead us to irrational explanations. Thus once again we are left with the plain wonder of the possibility of the coexistence of the two- not into binary realms but here and now, with you!
Then again the mere fact that the source of life is infinite yet it can take up residence in a finite body is yet another irrational wonder. It does not mean it is not the reality. Thus choice and providence can coexist.
Why is it impossible to comprehend? For the same reason we need to eat and sleep, human-physical-rational-reality that necessitates time, so obscures the we find it hard to even accept the possibility of the irrational.
The “Irrational Perspective” sees the finite/rational human attempt to comprehend the infinite/irrational nature of providence, and how choice fits into this larger “scheme”, akin to one attempting to draw a picture of an undiscovered galaxy, it is mere speculation.
Example A.
A higher force controls EVERYTHING i.e. providence and knows what the human will choose, and at the same time we do have choice! It is simply a wonder of existence, it is incomprehensible it is irrational. Thus Hitler had a choice of whether or not to kill over 6 million Jews but the higher force was already aware of the ultimate result, yet the final solution could have come about if it was chosen. Providence and choice, together. How? It’s a wonder!
Example B.
Another way of understanding this is the Jewish and Sufi notion of a holy man who can see the future. What is behind this assertion, how can one see know the future before it occurs, unless they can exist both in the future and the present? Indeed this is the Jewish conception of the Holy/Righteous person (tzaddik). What makes a person Holy is the subjugation and elevation of their body/animal to their soul the source of their existence (for more on what is meant here by “existence” please see post “Is Soul the Global Consciousness”). This source is not physical, it does not have mass or take up physical space nor is subject to concepts like time.
This last point is exactly what allows the tzaddik to see the future. Because the tzaddik is so close to this source they can consciously access this sources reality where the past present and future exist as one, and are not subject the rational notion of time. In essence the tzaddik can see the future because they have conscious access to a place where the future is indistinguishable from the present. It time is a place where time does not exist.
On the other hand, choice is a reflection of our need as rational beings to order our lives, through time. Choice is a result of time; the future requires us to make choices now, for later. For example, is it a good idea to invest three years and over 100,000 dollars towards legal education? This question is in itself a manifestation of time as it’s an attempt to predict the future, likewise time is a result of our need to rationalize, because we are human. Humans, unlike the rest of nature make choices based on the future (human>rational>time>choice).
I’m tempted to continue this line of reasoning but I’m already losing myself.
Providence is above time, there is no future thus choice and result -choice and providence- occur simultaneously. But they both occur. Is this a rational explanation? No, but then again the second view sees the answer as irrational, but that doesn’t mean the path to discovering the irrational need not be explored rationally.
CONVERSATION:
Still according to the above view the answer exists in the irrational realm where time and space do not exist. Yet our choices are made here in the finite realm of time and space?! This question opens up a can of worms but here we go.
The potential explanation is understanding that every organism is made of two elements, the infinite clothed in finite.
1. Our mass, and that which we use to sustain that mass, food, money, time, etc. (external)
2. That which allows our mass to exist, and grow. The ex nihilo of creation, the source of material that made up the mass of the big bang. (internal)
A question can further help us understand the ramifications and relevance of this distinction .
Why is it that all live mass returns to dirt after it dies?
Because there are two forces in play the mass/physical, and the limits that come along with that. Then there is what gives that mass life and allows it be alive. When that unseen force leaves the mass the mass eventually returns to the anonymity.
The point is that just because we are unable to access this level of “no time” does not mean it doesn’t exist here within every one of us. Indeed we know of its existence from rational questions, that lead us to irrational explanations. Thus once again we are left with the plain wonder of the possibility of the coexistence of the two- not into binary realms but here and now, with you!
Then again the mere fact that the source of life is infinite yet it can take up residence in a finite body is yet another irrational wonder. It does not mean it is not the reality. Thus choice and providence can coexist.
Why is it impossible to comprehend? For the same reason we need to eat and sleep, human-physical-rational-reality that necessitates time, so obscures the we find it hard to even accept the possibility of the irrational.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
