I’m so surprised that so many people are reading Aziraphale’s “I’m so sorry to hear it” in response to Crowley’s “I lost my best friend” as him being a totally inept moron with zero ability to read people, when that couldn’t be farther from the truth, as far as I can see???
It was a super British reaction to an unabashed emotional outpouring. It’s an I can’t deal with this right now stiff upper lip keep calm and carry on error message of the brain.
He knows exactly what Crowley means. And when I say exactly, I don’t just mean that Aziraphale knows that Crowley is saying he is his best friend. That much he already knew. That’s par for the course by now. What he realises is that Crowley is essentially saying that because he lost Aziraphale, his life just stopped being worth anything. That he had given up, decided not to save himself by running away, and couldn’t even try to save the world, because without Aziraphale the world didn’t seem worth saving. Without Aziraphale, he didn’t have the strength or capacity or will to save the world, or himself. That because he had lost Aziraphale he was just going to sit in a bar and drink himself into a stupor and wait to die.
Aziraphale knew exactly what Crowley meant, 100%. And he was in no state whatsoever to even begin to deal with that. So he said “So sorry to hear it”, and took a second to put his heart back in his chest, and then kept calm and carried on, because he had a world to save. He had a Crowley to save.
I’m as much of a fan as anyone for affectionately calling Crowley and Aziraphale idiots, but in actuality neither of them are, at all. Aziraphale is very intelligent, including emotionally intelligent. He’s wilfully naive which manifests as idiocy sometimes, but that’s not the same thing. He wasn’t being a dolthead with no understanding of anything, in this scene. He was being his deeply emotionally-intelligent self, and just not having the time or mental space to deal with what he read in Crowley’s words. And Crowley responded to that accordingly, too. They know each other too well, and they are both too clever for any such misunderstanding.
“@blackwhitemc do you think you can elaborate on what “willfully naive” means? It sounds so striking. :o”
Hi!
What do I mean by “wilfully naive”? I’m not good at explaining myself very well so if this makes no sense at all, I’m really sorry ahhaha.
Okay, so, like, naivete is a form of ignorance, perhaps even unintelligence, especially when you are as long-lived, well-read, and extensively-experienced as Aziraphale is, right? And, when it comes to Heaven, Aziraphale absolutely behaves naively. Time and time again he is faced with Heaven, and God, doing things that he doesn’t like. The Flood. Soddom and Gomorrah. The crucifixion of Jesus. Armaggeddon. And doubtless a whole lot more on top of that. Yet he always brushes it off, always goes back to the dogmatic hardline of “Heaven is Good. Hell is Bad. Angels are Good. Demons are Bad. God knows Best. It’s all just ineffable.”
He acts stupidly, not because he is stupid, but because he ignores rationality, he ignores what he can see, he ignores what he feels, and thinks, and knows to be true. Things like “killing kids probably isn’t good” and “raining fire and destruction on an entire city isn’t really that nice” and “torturing a really nice, wise guy isn’t actually very acceptable” and “Yeah, no, Heaven definitely does want to destroy the world, because they have explicitly told me that on at least three occasions”.
But he isn’t stupid. Aziraphale is categorically not stupid. He’s very clever. And not just book-clever, although he is book clever, he’s also crafty. He weasels his way around rules enough, always finding ways to rationalise bending them enough to get what he wants. He is wise, and just as wiley as the Demon he adores.
So why does he act so naively when it comes to heaven? As Crowley says, heart-breaking-ly:
“You’re so clever. How can somebody as clever as you be so stupid?”
It’s because Aziraphale chooses to be naive to Heaven. He is wilfully naive. He keeps the blinkers on, he turns away, he shields himself with “ineffability”, because the truth is too scary. It’s too much.
Crowley Fell because he asked questions. That’s all you had to do, ask questions, and that was enough. And there is no indication, as far as I can see, that suggests being Fallen doesn’t suck. Crowley isn’t there like “Oh hey Aziraphale, you know, you should just Fall, cos this is awesome. Way better down here. Basically no difference at all, just no nagging angels on your case all the time.” It’s implied (in my view) that Falling actually is pretty horrible. Crowley doesn’t want Aziraphale to Fall, and Aziraphale doesn’t want himself to Fall.
And, even aside from that (more than that?), asking questions, facing up to the reality staring him in the face for as long as he’s been on earth, that’s difficult. The truth can be a bitter pill. To accept that Heaven maybe isn’t that great, that demons like Crowley are better than some of the Angels? More compassionate? More kind? More worthy? What does that mean for Aziraphale’s entire existence? His loyalty to Heaven, his Toeing The Party Line, his allowing atrocities like The Flood to be committed in the name of Holiness? (I could write a whole other essay on that alone, it’s so interesting, but I’ll stop myself cos this is too long anyway and I’m sure you get the point haha). Once you start pulling at that little thread of truth, the whole tapestry will unravel, and who knows what lay behind it.
And on top of that again, Aziraphale is so full of self-doubt. The interactions we see him having with Heaven aren’t exactly wholesome. They’re pretty damn toxic, in fact. Gabriel puts him down, is passive aggressive, condescending, patronising, belittling… And in his presence Aziraphale constantly fiddles with his bow-tie, straightens his jacket - tries to measure up to impossible standards. So on top of being afraid of Falling, on top of being afraid of what will unravel once he begins to pull at that thread of Reality, Aziraphale can’t even trust that he would be right. He has so little faith in himself, he constantly doubts himself, constantly second guesses, constantly questions himself.
No. It’s easier to just… not. To ignore the alarm bells, ignore the warning signs, close your eyes to all of it. Just… play along. Keep the Faith. Don’t ask questions. Don’t think about it. Pretend that you don’t think about it. Forget about all of the times you think about it, and all of the times you talk about it with Crowley, and all of the times you come so close to agreeing that it’s all bullshit, that “Good and Evil […]are just names for sides. Weknow that.” Be naive. Choose to be naive. Force yourself to be naive. Do it wilfully, and stubbornly, and desperately.
That’s what I mean by “wilfully naive”. Hahahaha >.< Sorry. Essay. Aziraphale is just so interesting to me [*coughcough* because I relate too much and project too much *coughcough*
I just want to add though, in his defense, that all of these years of wilful naivete contribute to his snap-180 rebellion once he is pushed so far that he can’t doubt himself, or Heaven’s not-Good-ness anymore. That must have been a jug of cold water to the face for Heaven. Aziraphale has millenia of pent-up anger, thousands of years worth of examples of Heaven being dickheads, all of this knowledge that he’s been locking up in a drawer in the back of his mind. Then suddenly whoosh Pandora’s Box opens and you have this Righteously Furious Angel, this Rebel-With-A-Serious-Cause on your doorstep, and he’s ready to throw down hands. He’s ready to possess humans, and to openly side with a demon, to stand against the supposed representatives of God Herself, and face down Satan Himself, flaming sword in one hand, Crowley’s hand in the other. It takes him a long time to be able to face the truth, but when he does, he does it wholeheartedly, and 100%.
I think it’s also worth noting that the demons as a whole aren’tbetter than the angels. While the angels aren’t great, on a day to day basis, the demons are worse. Aziraphale was sent to earth to Do Good: he’s helping bring peace to the land, trying to trap Nazis, and what have you. Crowley, on the other hand, was sent to Do Bad: destroy peace, ruin everyone’s days so that they take it out on each other, etc.
And while some of the angels are definitely doing bad things in the nameof Good (the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc) Aziraphale is actually doing blessings and healing hurts and whatnot. If he questions God, he falls (or at least he would have in the old days) and not only is falling painful, but:
a. he probably wouldn’t be on earth anymore, since Crowley already has that job, so he’d lose both Crowley and everything he enjoys
and b. he would have to stop helping people and start hurting them. Because, while it’s downplayed in the TV show, that’s Crowley’s job and he’s quite good at it.
So from his perspective, the stakes are very high for him if he allows himself to doubt Heaven at all. And as someone said up there, he’s good at rationalizing! He can convince himself that working with Crowley is fine (the job will get done anyway!), that it’s OK to have Jean-Claude executed in his place (he killed 999 people!), that he can get himself tables at the Ritz whenever he feels like it. If he can convince himself that that’s all part of his job description, then of course he can convince himself that Heaven really is looking out for everyone’s best interests.
This is a really excellent addition, @runawaymarbles and I agree wholeheartedly with all your points!!
There is definitely a tendency to… perhaps downplay Crowley’s bad side? He is good at causing trouble, serious trouble, and at getting people to cause trouble for each other. But there is, also, some super interesting nuance to that, which I’d really like to get into a bit.
Like Aziraphale justifying Heaven (and himself) doing morally questionable things for the sake of Good, in a way I think we see Crowley doing this too, but for the sake of ChoiceandKnowledge. He justifies the things he does, philosophically, with the idea that people need to know that they can be bad, that they have the choice to be bad. In the book, we see Aziraphale’s argument that “people couldn’t become truly holy unless they also had the chance to be definitively wicked”.
I think that’s the most important factor in Crowley’s behaviour and world view, too, but from a different angle than Aziraphale. For Aziraphale, the goal is that people should be Holy, should be good. For Crowley, I think, the goal is that people get to choose whicht they are.
Just as the user above argued that Aziraphale can convince himself that the outcome justifies the act (e.g. working with a Demon might not be exactly copacetic in Heaven’s eyes, but if the job gets done properly, in the end what does it really matter?), for Crowley the act justifies the outcome. It doesn’t matter if bad things happen because of the existence of choice, because the choice is all that matters. The act of being able to choose supersedes the consequences of choosing. If people choose to be awful, that’s just the cost of choice.
In a way it could be argued that Crowley is just as dogmatic as Aziraphale, only rather than being dogmatically loyal to his “Side”, he is dogmatic about the absolute centrality of Choice and Knowledge.
I want to write about this more fully, but just for the sake of this little rant here (lmao) I think we can see a good example of this when Crowley suggests to Aziraphale that Aziraphale could kill Warlock. This is notable for a couple of reasons (and hella interesting, and full of biblical metaphor, and one of these days I’m going to write a fuck-off essayon that scene, but not right now pahah).
Firstly, I find it super interesting that Crowley doesn’t ever seem to suggest he kills the boy. Of course, this is no doubt in part because he is the Demon and killing the boss’s son probably wouldn’t look great on the CV, but I’m not sure this is a full account of why he doesn’t. Because Crowley doesn’t really care about the rules, and he could definitely find a way of killing the kid somehow without leading the trail back to him. The stakes are high enough, and he is smart enough.
If that argument is strong enough, I’d lead it further and say that, therefore, Crowley doesn’t suggest killing Warlock himself because he’d already decided that he would never do that. That’s something he just can’t do. After all, he raised that kid. He has shown serious aversion to killing kids generally, let alone killing one that he is personally invested it. Crowley wouldn’t kill Warlock - and this makes his one life, for the whole universe speech even more interesting (and oh my god it’s so interesting anyway, so much to unpack… Not now Wolfie, jesus, stay on topic!). It’s interesting in this context because it’s almost like Crowley is saying to Aziraphale exactly the same arguments he made to himself, before deciding against killing the kid.
So, Crowley won’t kill Warlock, doesn’t want to kill Warlock, arguably doesn’t want anyone to kill Warlock - the fact that he really doesn’t push the point with Aziraphale strengthens this argument, I think. But then why does he bring it up at all? If he’s already decided against killing Warlock, if it’s something he doesn’t want, then why would he suggest it to Aziraphale?
To give him thechoice. To make him aware that the choice exists. To make sure that he has all of the knowledge available to him, so that he can make an informed decision. Even if that decision ends up being one that Crowley categorically does not want to happen. Something that Crowley, arguably, believes would be A Bad Thing.
Of course, this is all very reflective of the whole Garden of Eden thing, too. Crawly let Eve know that she had the Choice to disobey. God had not given Adam and Eve all of the information - even in the Bible that’s canon, cos God tells Adam and Eve that they shouldn’t even touch the tree, because if they do, they will die. The serpent knows that this isn’t all of the information, and so he just tells Eve what the tree actually is. The serpent didn’t manipulate, or coerce, or force Eve to eat from the tree, he only made her aware. He gave her knowledge, and he gave her choice. If that meant God would get hella pissed and fuck up humanity forever because of it, well, it was still worth it. Crowley unlocks gilded cages and let’s the birds decide whether or not to fly into the storm.
… This thread is getting more an more unrelated to my original rant, isn’t it? Haha! Oh well. I should probably re-write this as it’s own standalone post, but… *shrugs*
The discussion of “willful naivete” and subsequent points in this part of the reblog chain had departed far from the original topic, but constitutes its own excellent meta, and thus warranted a separate post.
now what? i wrote a little essay about the hike. should i post it? does anyone care? i also wrote a sci-fi novel while grinding through those 2200 miles. should i post that one too? i really need a mathematician - and an agent. maybe i’ll repost every photo start-to-finish again… i dunno…
Sam Harris’s book Free Willis short, but very smart, and packs a lot of punch. He argues that the concept of free will, as it is commonly understood, is an unfounded myth. He does not believe, however, that this means we lack any control over our lives at all. Instead, he states that his belief that we lack free will has changed how he lives his life for the better, and believes that it could…
Amid the challenging prophecies of persecution for His followers comes Jesus’ promise of the witness of the Paraclete, The [Holy Spirit Himself, Who] is to be the backbone or mainstay of the [nascent] Christian movement as [either] the substitute for, or [altered] Presence of, the physical Jesus. [Initially] the help provided by this ‘Advocate’ concerned the truth of the [internalized] message: the Paraclete would make clear to the disciples the implications and the fullness of the message of Christ. Now, [this depth being grasped,] the Paraclete faces outwards in bearing witness to that truth.
‘Paraclete’ is obviously a sort of work-name for the Spirit. In the Book of Judges, the spirit of God – not yet understood as a separate Person – comes suddenly upon God’s chosen agent (Gideon, Samson, Saul), giving power to lead Israel to confront enemies and conquer them. Here, however, [coming upon those chosen by the Son,] the Spirit bears witness by giving the strength to confront opposition and speak out boldly, as we see the apostles doing in the Book of Acts. [The Holy Spirit remains willing and able to bestow this strength upon all Christians facing spiritual warfare, both within and without,] but we still retain free will, and no strength will come from the Paraclete unless our own spirit is moved to stand firm. In the daily calls to bear witness by putting ourselves out [onto the front lines], by risking loss of ease, credit, or comfort, let alone actual pain, [injury, or even death], our own resolution is needed too.
The Mechanistic Theory of Life is a philosophical perspective assuming that the entire universe is determined by causation and the laws of physics, and therefore, can be fully explained using mechanical principles. Nikola Tesla held a firm belief that every living organism is devoid of free will, and is compelled by an infinitude of external influences prompting them into action. According to Tesla, humans, although being more complex than most organisms, are all similar in nature. Any thought humans may conceive and every act they perform from conception to death are governed by external effects. Before we get into Tesla’s philosophy, I will briefly go over who and what influenced him to subscribe to this paradigm.
In the seventeenth century, a physician by the name of William Harvey laid the groundwork to the Mechanistic Theory of Life. Harvey is best known for his contributions to the science of anatomy and physiology. He was the first to correctly explain the circulation of the blood in the human body and provided experiments to prove his arguments. Harvey recognized that the heart and arteries acted like a pump and were subject to limitations like any other mechanical pump. Harvey provided evidence that the human organism operated like a machine that functioned just like any other machine made by humans. Although his work was not focused on a philosophical theory of life, the benefaction of his discovery placed him among those who altered the entire perspective and approach to the theory of life.
Alongside Harvey, the great philosopher Rene Descartes also contributed to this mechanistic train of thought. With the contribution of Harvey’s work, Descartes envisioned all life as simply automata incapable of actions other than those executed by a machine. It was his philosophy that opened up a whole new perspective and conversation about the nature of humankind–humans as machines. A new belief that all organic actions in life arose, based on the disposition of sensory organs simply reacting to the environment. Descartes’ work would promote dualism, which portrays mind and body as separate from each other (a belief Tesla wouldn’t subscribe to), and his ideas would dominate European thought for years to come. This would create two polarizing belief systems—free will versus determinism. With Descartes’ influence, the science of anatomy and botany would be changed tremendously.
The Darwinian Revolution followed next, which had a great effect on Nikola Tesla’s philosophy, but it was Herbert Spencer’s work who influenced him the most. Spencer was the first to coin the term, “survival of the fittest,” which coincided with Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Both Spencer and Darwin put forth a hypothesis for the theory of evolution of organisms. In his Principles of Psychology, Herbert Spencer said, “to be conscious is to think; to think is to form conceptions—to put together impressions and ideas; and to do this, is to be the subject of internal changes. It is admitted on all hands that without change, consciousness is impossible.”
In 1893, in a lecture given before the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, Spencer’s and Descartes’ words would echo in the auditorium as Tesla presented his idea of the human being:
“What is the foundation of all philosophical systems of ancient and modern times, in fact, of all the philosophy of men? I am I think; I think, therefore I am. But how could I think and how would I know that I exist, if I had not the eye? For knowledge involves consciousness; consciousness involves ideas, conceptions; conceptions involve pictures or images, and images the sense of vision, and therefore the organ of sight. But how about blind men, will be asked? Yes, a blind man may depict in magnificent poems, forms and scenes from real life, from a world he physically does not see. A blind man may touch the keys of an instrument with unerring precision, may model the fastest boat, may discover and invent, calculate and construct, may do still greater wonders—but all the blind men who have done such things have descended from those who had seeing eyes… but sometime or other, during the process of evolution, the eye certainly must have existed, else thought, as we understand it, would be impossible; else conceptions, like spirit, intellect, mind, call it as you may, could not exist.”
According to Tesla, the philosophers and scientists of the past were in the dark with their hypotheses and experiments, and since their time, many functions of the branches of science have evolved significantly. He believed that the human being is simply a self-propelled biological machine, whose actions (similar to the rest of the universe) can only be governed by external influences.
In order to prove this theory further, Tesla set out to invent a mechanical device similar to the human body, with sensitive organs that react to external influences (inspired by Herbert Spencer and his work on the nerves in the human body). These organs would be receivers which react to electrical waves sent from a transmitting device; propelling the machine into motion. This device would then lead to the invention of Tesla’s remote controlled boat which would be the basis to all wirelessly controlled devices today (e.g. T.V. remotes, drones, vehicle starters, robots, satellites, etc.).
In an article titled “How Cosmic Forces Determine Our Destinies,”(1915) Tesla would go into meticulous detail describing his Mechanistic Theory of Life. In his article, and in his own words, he came to five conclusions:
The human being is a self-propelled machine entirely under the control of external influences. Though free-will might appear so, the actions of humans are governed not from within, but from without. He is like an empty bottle tossed in the ocean.
There is no memory bank. What we designate as memory is but increased responsiveness to repeated stimuli.
Descartes was wrong, there is no stored knowledge in the brain. Memory is something akin to an echo that needs to reflect on something to be called into being.
All knowledge, memory, or form conception is exposed to the eye externally, either in situations the human is conscious of, or situations they are not aware of.
Contrary to the most important tenet of Cartesian philosophy that the perceptions of the mind are illusionary, the eye transmits to it the true and accurate likeness of external things. This is because light propagates in straight lines and the image cast on the retina is an exact reproduction of the external form and one which, owing to the mechanism of the optic nerve, can not be distorted in the transmission to the brain. What is more, the process must be reversible, that is to say, a form brought to consciousness can, by reflex action, reproduce the original image on the retina just as an echo can reproduce the original disturbance If this view is borne out by experiment an immense revolution in all human relations and departments of activity will be the consequence.
In summary, Tesla illustrated a strong stance on how natural forces influence humans. He portrayed how earth rotates at a velocity of 1,520 feet per second, and is carried through space at a speed around the sun–19 miles per second; the kinetic energy imparted is over 25,160,000,000 foot pounds (a “foot pound” translates to a force of energy equal to the amount required to raise 1 pound a distance of 1 foot). Therefore, the kinetic energy stored in our bodies relative to this motion should calculate to nearly 6,000,000 foot pounds. The centrifugal force would range to about .55 of a pound. Since the sun is 332,000 times larger than earth and is 23,000 times further away, the gravitational effect on humans should be about .1 of a pound. This weight constantly changes with different positions of the earth and the sun. He then explains that, “the circumference of the earth has a speed of 1,520 feet per second, which is either added to or subtracted from the translator velocity of nineteen miles through space. Owing to this the energy will vary from twelve to twelve hours by an amount approximately equal to 1,533,000,000 foot pounds, which means that energy streams in some unknown way into and out of the body of the automaton at the rate of about sixty-four horse-power.” To further his point, Tesla went on to detail how the whole solar system is urged towards the Hercules constellation, and this too has major effects on the human translating simply as local cosmic disturbances. He would then explain the effects of the human on earth, including static electricity effects from the earth, atmospheric pressure (a force of 16 tons), the sun’s heat, sounds from the surrounding environment, temperature changes due to seasonal weather conditions, sleep routines based off day and night, and many other external changes in the environment humans are unconsciously accustomed to.
Based on other notions later in Tesla’s life, he believed humans are also unaware that they are affected by a shower of cosmic rays constantly shooting through their bodies, night and day, at the speed of light. Tesla would poetically say, “Like a float on a turbulent sea, swayed by external influences, he moves and acts. The average person is not aware of this constant dependence on his environment; but a trained observer has no difficulty in locating the primary disturbance which prompts him into action, and continued exercise soon satisfies him that virtually all of his purely mechanical motions are caused by visual impressions, directly or indirectly received.” (“Tesla’s Tidal Wave to Make War Impossible.” New York World, April 21, 1907.)
According to Tesla, humans are completely ignorant to the constant dependency on their environment. He believed that if humankind’s power of observation were more precise, they could recognize that they live in the illusion of perfect choice and freedom in their thoughts and actions. They could recognize and locate the external influences promoting them into motion, soon they would realize that all their actions are purely mechanical motions caused by visual impressions, directly or indirectly received through their sensory organs. To Tesla, the universe was simply a marvelous machine, infinite in nature (a nature which humans could never comprehend with their finite minds). He was raised as a Christian (entangled with Hinduism and Buddhism), but was also a scientist at heart. To him, discovering the workings and the complete picture of the universe was a scientist’s ultimate goal and purpose.
“There is no conflict between the ideal of religion and the ideal of science, but science is opposed to theological dogmas because science is founded on fact. To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end. The human being is no exception to the natural order. Man, like the universe, is a machine. Nothing enters our minds or determines our actions which is not directly or indirectly a response to stimuli beating upon our sense organs from without. Owing to the similarity of our construction and the sameness of our environment, we respond in like manner to similar stimuli, and from the concordance of our reactions, understanding is born. In the course of ages, mechanisms of infinite complexity are developed, but what we call “soul” or “spirit,” is nothing more than the sum of the functionings of the body. When this functioning ceases, the “soul” or the “spirit” ceases likewise.—Nikola Tesla, (“A Machine to End War.” Liberty Magazine, February, 1937.)
Tesla would conclude later in his life that there is no randomness that occurs in nature. No matter how complex life seems, all the universe is linked and all can be explained using a mathematical formula. He trained himself throughout his whole life to trace the external influences which regulated his life, leading him to deny the existence of individuality, and viewed the universe as a singular entity:
“We are just waves in time and space, changing continuously, and the illusion of individuality is produced through the concatenation of the rapidly succeeding phases of existence. What we define as likeness is merely the result of the symmetrical arrangement of molecules which compose our body…there is no soul or spirit. These are merely expressions of the functions of the body. These life functions cease with death and so do soul and spirit. What humanity needs is ideals. Idealism is the force that will free us from material fetters.”—Nikola Tesla (“Tesla Seeks to Send Power to Planets.” New York Times, July 11, 1931.)
Brain “plasticity” is one of the great discoveries in modern science, but neuroscientist David Eagleman thinks the word is misleading. Unlike plastic, which molds and then retains a particular shape, the brain’s physical structure is continually in flux. But Eagleman can’t avoid the word. “The whole literature uses that term plasticity, so I use it sparingly,” he says. Eagleman also discounts computer analogies to the brain. He’s coined the term “livewired” (the title of his new book) to point out that the brain’s hardware and software are practically inseparable.
Freddie deBoer is on the warpath lately against the turn towards “severe (non-depression/anxiety-type) mental illness is fine or even innately a positive attribute and it’s only society’s attitudes and medication that are the problem” rhetoric in the activism movement. One of his latest posts is in this powerful video against an NYT piece by a Daniel Bergner (which I haven’t been able to read thanks to unsubscribing from NYT last year) who wrote a book from interviews of “hearing voices movement” activists. In it, he asks rhetorical questions in the vein of, “Does Daniel Bergner think [horrifying action or intention influenced by psychosis, including those in deBoer’s past] is good and makes psychosis a trait to celebrate as part of one’s identity?”
But you do know what the answer is going to be, don’t you, Freddie? “Of course those actions/intentions aren’t okay because they aren’t caused by mental illness; they may be influenced somewhat by mental illness but they can only be caused by being a Bad Person, don’t you have any sense of your own or others’ personal responsibility? There are Circumstances/Conditions, most of which are not inherently negative things outside of society’s role/reaction, and so anything bad someone in those circumstances does must be part of being a Bad Person.”
Certainly I know that’s a bit of a caricature, because in conversations I’ve had with individuals about mental illness -related bad behaviors, they’ve had the nuance to acknowledge a blurrier line between areas to put the responsibility. But on the level of general discourse, a lot of the rhetoric often does seem to err in the direction of a clear and somewhat arbitrary line of separation between Circumstances One Can’t Help and Free Agency which makes it conveniently easy to assert that there’s nothing negative about particular traits/conditions because everything negative that appears related to them ultimately comes down purely to Free Agency.
I’ve said this before, but if only someone had the philosophical rigor combined with the necessary popular writing chops to create a bestseller on how to disentangle the mess of mental sloppiness with which we model people’s actions based on a clear dividing line between free will and deterministic mechanisms…
Brain “plasticity” is one of the great discoveries in modern science, but neuroscientist David Eagleman thinks the word is misleading. Unlike plastic, which molds and then retains a particular shape, the brain’s physical structure is continually in flux. But Eagleman can’t avoid the word. “The whole literature uses that term plasticity, so I use it sparingly,” he says. Eagleman also discounts computer analogies to the brain. He’s coined the term “livewired” (the title of his new book) to point out that the brain’s hardware and software are practically inseparable.
When we allow other peoples opinions and beliefs to govern our life ~ we are not free. We become bound by dogma and the popularity of “group consciousness” giving up our innate ability to go within and listen to our own true source of guidance. In order to reclaim this ability to receive clear guidance ~ from within ~ we need to relearn how to “feel” again so we can “feel” what is “light” for us.
We are diverse creator beings with the free will to make our very own choices that are “in” or “out” of alignment with the laws of creation advancing or devolving our souls. With the best of intentions, many people are breaking the laws of creation through their domineering belief systems based on fear and separation consciousness. These people are manipulative and use energetic and psychic manipulation that coerce people, close to them, to not think for themselves giving up their freedom and power to choose what is “light” for them. Oftentimes, it is our family, friends, employers, governments and religious institutions that are so full of rigidity, judgment, duality, fear and control they will take our power away because they feel “they know” what is best for us.
When we give up our power to choose for ourselves ~ we loose the value of our life. The greatest gift the universe has given us is the power of free will choice. We are creator beings with the power to create the lives we want ~ unless we give our creator power away to someone else to create for us.
I completely agree. Stop going against God’s will for free will. If you truly believe, leave it to God. These situations aren’t black and white and I don’t believe God would purposely have someone raped in order to have them bear a certain child or would want a child to be born to be neglected and abused it’s entire life.
