Existential Dilemmas -- Systems of Control (#46)

The existential dilemma that plagues my mind -- systems of control. I hate systems of control, because they limit freedom. Since I am one to love freedom and love the idea that I am a self-reflective human being that can choose his own actions, decisions, and thoughts (free-will), I cant help but be completely disoriented by the mass amount of systems of control that exist in our life and universe, I am 'distorted and disoriented' because I hate the idea that i'm not in control of my life. Ironically in the same way I am fascinated by systems of control.

Some of my greatest concerns are that of causality and the idea of causal determinism (control). It severly bothers me that I may not have any control over my actions or events that happen. If causal determinism is true, then, as many would argue for, free-will does not exist in terms that one could have the unwavering ability to choose another course of action according to the nexus of time. The causal-time nexus is ultimately just a chain of links that are connected together, and it suggests that time is tenseless. If time is tenseless, it therefore means time is impossible to change, which means all courses of events before, now, or in the future are already set. And if that is the case, then free-will from a first glance does not exist.

Existentialism is the idea that the individual makes life what he appears to be, for himself. The individual can and does have complete control of his or her life. Existentialism promotes the idea of creating your own purpose in life, because as being an existentialist, you understand that life is essentially meaningless and purposeless. For some, it sends them into a depth of perceptive hell in which they cannot escape, some become nihilists and even kill themselves or go into a depression in which they assume that the only purpose (which isnt even an intrinsically real purpose in itself) is to end, because nothing matters.

But existentialism promotes the individual. Being an existentialist means you take responsibility for your actions and that whatever you think you are is what you are; if you think you are "bad" then you are "bad", if you think something is "depressing", then it really is "depressing" to you, if you think something is "frustrating", then it really is "frustrating". No one can tell you who you are, except yourself. You take responsibility for your actions and the meanings you give to the world, no one else decides that for you, unless YOU accept for yourself that THEY are deciding an action or thought for you.

Most people at some point in their lives go through an existential crises of some sort, where they question whether or not a god exists and the ideas of afterlife, and many take many different paths after their existential introspection. Most people take the religious route and end up dogmatically accepting whatever their supposed religion teaches them. When someone undergoes an existential crises and experiences the feeling or reality that life is essentially meaningless, one is offered a choice to accept or reject the notion of purpose and reality, and from there there are multiple paths that are offered. If they take the path of religion they believe (for the most part) that life has purpose and when you die you still exist in some salvation.

If someone takes the path of existentialism, they now have a void to be filled. If there is no purpose, and life is essentially meaningless what does one do? In order to fill that existential void one has to create smaller individual puropses according to ones lifestyle, feelings, and desires. For some reason most people cant accept that life is meaningless, so they turn to religion (which fills the existential void, or according to maslows pyramid: self-actualization).

For the others that turn to existialism, multiple things can happen, for some existentialists, they cant accept the fact that life is meaningless, so they commit suicide or go on long bouts of depression in which they dont know what to do. For some others, they reject the notion of not doing anything, and they agree with the idea that "If life is essentially meaningless why do nothing?". The existentialist goes out and creates a purpose in life to their own liking. They create meaning by the choices and decisions that was created by themselves.

As to come back to my original point of Systems of control, causality poses the worst threat to anyone in terms of their free-will (their choices and freedom) and it is of concern to the existentialist. If causlity is true, and free-will (freedom) doesnt exist, does that mean that being the existentialist and all the choices I make arent even choices I am really making? Existentialism suggests that the individual can reject anything (and accept anything) that is given to him, including any system of control (even causality).

However, as much as I tried to find flaws in every system of control that exists, it merely occured to me that the flaw in itself was a system of control meant to blind you from the truth. And the truth is -- that causlity exists and is the ultimate system of control that cannot be escaped. This only bothered me even more, as I hate the idea that I am not in control of my life.

I then recently had a revelation in the idea of free-will and determinism. I had found that maybe there is one possibility that free-will can co-exist with determinism, hence why I am a compatibilist. This recent revelation that has really got me worked up into researching more and more about philosophy, existentialism and the positions of free-will, and this revelation could change everything and it is this:

Freedom and Control (two opposites) may ultimately be interconnected in such a way that human beings cannot, at a first glance, comprehend, and as such we see them as distinct entities. My reasoning for this is the fact that I may have seemingly stumbled upon some sort of "law of nexus control" (the idea that control is connected TO something, and that something is freedom) that would allow for "freedom" and "control" to exist simultaneously in any environment.

I am suggesting that you take away the notion that freedom or control are distinct elements; They are not. Here is the real truth: it is this 'law of nexus control'. Your own control is your own freedom, and your own freedom is your own control. Whatever you cannot control is whatever you dont have the freedom for, and vice-versa; whatever you dont have freedom over, you dont have control over. To say it in more positive terms: When you have control of something, you have the freedom to do THAT something, and vice-versa; When you have the freedom to do something, you have the control to do THAT something.

This 'law of nexus control' would suggest that anything we are controlled by (or seemingly control) we have freedom with, because in vice-versa terms, our freedom is our own control, so whatever we control (or controlled by) we have freedom with. This MAY suggest that causal determinism (a system of control) may allow the possibility for people to actually have choices (and freedom), and thus free-will. This "law of nexus control" is not fully complete; i'm still developing it and i'm trying to think about ho, why, and what all of it means for the world, but hopefully I have stumbled upon the idea that free-will can exist.

(Unless you take it to even more extremes and say that my desire for freedom caused me to find this "law" and write this blog, which was ultimately determined because of that desire for freedom.)

Psychology: Coping Mechanisms of Reality (#45)

The ability to cope with reality is what determines their personality because of the experience that coping mechanism produces. These mechanisms are the mechanisms that stay in place, and become their personality's coping mechanisms (probably starting from birth). This 'defense mechanism' stays in place until that person learns to become an individual, and learns to use both mechanisms depending on the situation. People either becomes someone who learns to integrate themselves with "reality" and thus are not intent on changing anything or having genuine "realities", or they become someone who changes "reality" and has an intent on doing something unique and genuine from there own thoughts.

Generally, starting from late elementary (grades 3-5) and onward, most kids become challenged in their thinking process from social situations, and during the road to becoming a content self-actualized individual, we face many challenges, and many of those challenges are unwanted challenges. These unwanted challenges produce thoughts about learning to "cope" with the situations (Almost always these situations are social).

People cope either by enduring the situations and becoming apart of it. These people will act like their friends or acquantainces, or from what they're supposed to do from experience generated by their culture.This type of coping should be considered eduring coping; where one makes his or her behavior a copy of the situations rather than trying to find some way to change it. These type of people accept many things, no matter how good or bad they are, and say theres nothing they can do about it so they should just accept it. This type of coping mechanism is the most common because it requires less freethought and less responsibility. These type of people just "act like everyone else" at a party or change for example. These people change their attitudes, behaviors, and values based on the social norms of a culture or goup rather than challenging, changing, or creating their own.

In my own opinion they have an abundance of will to the construct belonging (according to maslows hierarchy), and this will seems to dominate any form of their logic proccesses.

The other type of person is more uncommon. This type of coping mechanism changes the "reality" around an individual, they bend "reality" to their will. These type of people change situations and often are the leaders of the situation. This type of coping is harder because it requires more courage to stand up for wha you really think and try and change the situation. This type requires more thinking, more action, and definitely more responsibility because it leads to new "unforseen" consequences and results. This type of coping would be considered changable coping.

An example of changable coping would be: Instead of drinking because its "fun", according to everyone else around you (and the culture that emphasizes it), this individual goes out and creates his own form of fun. This individual does something for the individuals own genuine thoughts, rather than "becoming like the rest of the masses".

Its possible, in my opinion, that Schizophrenia is a result partly of the changable coping mechansim. It is partly because the individuals will is split between satisfying the cultural norms, values, and laws, and following its own desires and biology. The culture represses this individuals thoughts or desires. It represses this person from trying to change things to the way this person 'wants them to be' (and it could be a negative thing too, like murder). So this schizophrenic person then has imaginary thoughts that appeal to them and "help guide" them along in changing their reality, without ever having to honestly admit that they have wronged against their social contracts and laws. Apparently self-deception truly is the most powerful form of mind control. (Think Donnie Darko for this last paragraph.)