Free Will, Meta Will, Evil, & the Good Lord

That “Free Will” is not free of society was made clear in Europe with the example of fascism (German, Soviet, Italian, Spanish, in historical order, not to mention Slavs and Balkans…). Various nationalistic crazes and pogrom like activities have shown the natural tendencies of entire peoples to behave like nasty robotic mass-homicidal torturing monsters.

Europe was founded and named, by the Franks. The Frankish government, in antique Roman Republican style, “renovated” by its good offices, was tolerant of all superstitions, including Catholicism, Paganism, Atheism, Judaism, and even Islamism.

However, coincident to and related with, the rise of extravagant Middle-Ages plutocracy, society became much less tolerant. The trigger was the First Crusade. In 1099 CE, Jews were mass massacred, in Alsace and further east, when herds of violent Catholics, full of enraged fervor. migrated east to take back Jerusalem.

Evil, Intel Of Angel

Evil, Intel Of Angel

The grand conclusion of this experience in hatred was revealed to the world by American Army generals in 1945, when the horror of extermination camps was revealed (the logical chain of Jew hatred went from burning all Cathars to Saint Louis, to Luther). In those Nazi camps around 22 million people were assassinated, according to the latest estimates (11 million killed for racist reasons, including 6 million Jews, plus 3.3 million Russian army prisoners, etc…).

Thus, after World War Two, social engineering in many European countries repaired the society to cure the individuals. It seems to have worked: the probability of being victim of a very serious crime, or being incarcerated, is an order of magnitude (a factor of ten) lower in Western Europe, than in the USA.

Does Knowledge Cause Crime?

That knowledge causes crime is the argument the partisans of obsolete moral systems always use. In a trivial, self-referencing way, they are right: if one defines crime as what the old moral system forbids, the change of moral systems will always cause crime. Having women starting to drive in Saudi Arabia would not doubt augment the crime rate.

However, human beings are knowledge and wisdom machines. Once they know what influences them, they take it into account.

Why? Human beings have long known that what’s in their heads is not necessarily what is out there. All hunters know that what appear is not necessarily what there is. They did not have to wait one million years for Nietzsche to tell them that. Superiorly differentiating distortions in information and the nature of reality, is what make a better predators, hence a more successful human being, or group.

Better philosophy eats better, and survives better. It’s the ultimate weapon. (Example: Athens at its apogee, when a herd of philosophers drove the state, and was able to harness the Free Will of its citizenry in a superlative armed polis.)

Saying that “Free Will does not exist” is not really what is going on. Much of what looks like “free” is actually a product of the group. Free Will arises from “Meta Will” what J-J. Rousseau called the “General Will”. The “General Will” will be hard to define: after all, it’s a mathematical notion going beyond our present computational capabilities (a typical case where Quantum Computing will help).

Any social thinking, where part of the Meta Will lays, is tainted in the USA by the background of the American police and justice systems, with its incarceration rate more than five times the world average (and much more if one takes into account all those under judicial surveillance, a category developed more in the USA than anywhere else).

Much “Free Will” being “Group Will”, if one does not like what the former leads to, one has to work on the latter. This is why what society believes in, say in a superstition, does not just impact individuals, it makes them up into what they are. (Consider the Middle-East an its imbroglio of fanatical, lethally opposed superstitions.)

The more we know, the more we can act upon the world, and thus the more freedom we have. However freedom is not what plutocrats want to see average people enjoy. Plutocrats go according to their namesake, Pluto, Satan. Demons in hell do not want to see those they are supposed to torture, enjoying freedom, or enjoying anything at all.

Yet, it’s the other way. Overall, on a civilizational scale, knowledge augments not just power, but morality.

The more we know, the more we know when we are not acting for the best, the more we can accuse ourselves of not acting well. And thus, the greater the opportunity we have to act well, and the better we will act.

We have a moral system which is evolutionary given (evolution being the Creator we had been looking for!). This natural Human Ethology interacts both with the Meta Will and individual Free Will.

However, in the USA the Plutocratic mentality is triumphant (latest GDP growth at an annual rate of 5%, not far behind plutocratic China). In this social paradigm, the Randian worship of the rugged individual is celebrated. People have to work, not by choice, as in Europe, but just to survive.

To justify itself, the Plutocratic mentality reveres Free Will. According to this system of thought and mood, all and any success is attributed to immanent justice, a just universe, which rewards character, ability and effort. Sociological studies have proven this.

The tension between Free Will and General Will, is that between Evil and Our Good Lord. It’s a debate, one side can’t think, let alone talk, without the other.

Obama has understood this, just enough to make do. We all have to travel the same road. Our General Will, right now, is called CO2. It will be a heavy cross. Look at the bright side, as Jesus, or Camus, would say.

To be able to smile, and it means something, we have to know how to snarl.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , ,

4 Responses to “Free Will, Meta Will, Evil, & the Good Lord”

  1. johsh Says:

    Meta-will is worse than free will. It sets boundaries, systems of thought, and often easy to hijack (by plutocrats in modern times, religious zealots in old times).

    Its better to encourage free will.

    yeah we need to work towards a better meta-will, but you do that by developing better free-will of the constituents. You do not go messing directly with meta-will….that will limit the future will-space.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      One can have the Meta Will to institute more Free Will. This is exactly what the Swiss are doing, with their increasingly direct democracy. This is also what I promote.

      When I see many of the Western leaders on the screen nowadays I have an increasingly hostile spite boiling in me. OK, forget the USA for a moment. Take the example of France: a handful of consummate idiots, who have known each other forever, take all the decisions, including how to cut up France into regions! Imagine a handful of people sleeping with each other, from the same class deciding to merge Colorado with Wyoming, or whatever (OK, bad example, all hicks, hahaha).

      Seriously. Merkel (perhaps the less bad leader, at least according to French polls!), decides all by herself she will do without nuclear energy. Makes no sense. The Swiss, seeing suddenly this is insane, just backed off… OK, Merkel has a PhD in experimental physics… Still, these things are better debated. Merkel knows something about batteries I don’t (or then intents to use France as nuclear back-up).

      All the Putin mess arose because of back deals and intolerable tolerance (Western secret services knew how bad Putin was, but thought he would keep on obeying, or something, the exact computation that failed with Hitler and Mussolini… Although it worked with Stalin.)

      Definitively Meta Will can be locked onto Direct Democracy, instead of trusting a dozen brains (some of them very angry, like Cameron’s)…


  2. gmax Says:

    What happened to the salacious exchange on Scientia Salon you promised to show us? I think like with the Times, they just delay you so nobody reads you.

    Also why don’t you answer Bill Gates directly about taxes? He has a site and a post where he trashes Pikety, and suggests that he, Gates pays too much tax, or something just as outrageous!


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Well the Scientia exchange did not reflect well on what I would like that site to represent. Besides I have little time for the silliness: the site has some biases I have identified and that it would not be political to crudely depict (I have already been banned by Searle and company from a major philosophy site, for no good reason whatsoever)


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: