The Will At Large
Aug. 13th, 2013 04:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trickykitty...or, Why We Cut Ourselves
I've been re-reading Dostoyevsky's Notes from the Underground a little bit each night. It's been so long since I read it (high school), I had actually forgotten what the bulk of it was about. It's interesting having my neuro-and-cog-sci knowledge with which to compare the concepts he brings up.
...reason is nothing but reason and satisfies only the rational side of man's nature, while will is a manifestation of the whole life, that is, of the whole human life including reason and all the impulses. I, for instance, quite naturally want to live, in order to satisfy all my capacities for life, and not simply my capacity for reasoning, that is, not simply one twentieth of my capacity for life.
I suspect, gentlemen, that you are looking at me with compassion; you tell me again that an enlightened and developed man, such, in short, as the future man will be, cannot consciously desire anything disadvantageous to himself, that that can be proved mathematically. I thoroughly agree, it can - by mathematics. But I repeat for the hundredth time, there is one case, one only, when man may consciously, purposely, desire what is injurious to himself, what is stupid, very stupid - simply in order to have the right to desire for himself even what is very stupid and not to be bound by an obligation to desire only what is sensible. Of course, this very stupid thing, this caprice of ours, may be in reality, gentlemen, more advantageous for us than anything else on earth, especially in certain cases. And in particular it may be more advantageous than any advantage even when it does us obvious harm, and contradicts the soundest conclusions of our reason concerning our advantage - for in any circumstances it preserves for us what is most precious and most important - that is, our personality, our individuality. Some, you see, maintain that this really is the most precious thing for mankind; choice can, of course, if it chooses, be in agreement with reason; and especially if this be not abused but kept within bounds. But very often, and even most often, choice is utterly and stubbornly opposed to reason.
...
In short, one may say anything about the history of the world - anything that might enter the most disordered imagination. The only thing one can't say is that it's rational. The very word sticks in one's throat. And, indeed, this is the odd thing that is continually happening: there are continually turning up in life moral and rational persons, sages and lovers of humanity who make it their object to live all their lives as morally and rationally as possible, to be, so to speak, a light to their neighbours simply in order to show them that it is possible to live morally and rationally in this world. And yet we all know that those very people sooner or later have been false to themselves, playing some queer trick, often a most unseemly one.
...
[Man] would even risk his cakes and would deliberately desire the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to introduce into all this positive good sense his fatal fantastic element. It is just his fantastic dreams, his vulgar folly that he will desire to retain, simply in order to prove to himself - as though that were so necessary - that men still are men and not the keys of a piano, which the laws of nature threaten to control so completely that soon one will be able to desire nothing but by the calendar. And that is not all: even if man really were nothing but a piano-key, even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely do something perverse out of simple ingratitude, simply to gain his point. And if he does not find means he will contrive destruction and chaos, will contrive sufferings of all sorts, only to gain his point! He will launch a curse upon the world, and as only man can curse (it is his privilege, the primary distinction between him and other animals), may be by his curse alone he will attain his object - that is, convince himself that he is a man and not a piano-key! If you say that all this, too, can be calculated and tabulated - chaos and darkness and curses, so that the mere possibility of calculating it all beforehand would stop it all, and reason would reassert itself, then man would purposely go mad in order to be rid of reason and gain his point! I belive in it, I answer for it, for the whole work of man really seems to consist in nothing but proving to himself every minute that he is a man and not a piano-key!
What happens when someone keeps getting pressed into a box and forced to conform?
Dostoyevsky presents the argument that the person will ultimately lash out; that the Will will exert itself against the unnatural conforming.
I propose that only sometimes does the Will lash out. Most times the Will folds and gives in and conforms. Most people go with the flow, follow the herd, stick to the status quo. They do not question, and they do not grow. Some people even voluntarily place themselves in that box. It's like Erich Fromm's view of authoritarianism. (I really do need to read Escape From Freedom, as I have yet to actually do so. I'm just very, very familiar with his theories.)
What Dostoyevsky is describing is what might happen when there is a distinct LACK of Will when one is otherwise a very willful person. The less willful a person is, the more likely they will conform and not lash out. Think about the person put into a cage against their Will - they lash out trying to fight against the cage, trying to find a way out. It is before the Will has given in and conformed to the new situation, or maybe much later once the person has decided to stop conforming to that box and is ready to once again exert his Will against the box in which he has been contained for so long. The protagonist of the book speaks of following a path that goes against the rational mind, maybe even a hurtful path, yet it is still the most advantageous path because it is what is best for the psyche of the individual in that moment. The willful person would rather cut off his hand and free himself of his handcuffs than to give in and suffer whatever comes next.
There is a quote in a Thomas Mann short story that I absolutely love: "Freedom exists, and also the will exists; but freedom of the will does not exist, for a will that aims at its own freedom aims at the unknown." There are times when we act in a manner that is ultimately hurtful, yet in the moment it is the most advantageous path against all common sense and all rationality. It is the Will re-exerting itself, yet it is strangely the opposite of freedom of choice. If it were freedom of choice, then our rational mind would be in charge and would be telling us that path is wrong. There are times when we DO tell ourselves, "This is not the way to go," and yet we continue on forward because our Will wills it so.
Think about this - how often do I preach that the rational mind is bugged beyond belief? Think about what I posted the other day about how much we lie to ourselves in order to rationalize decisions that may not be the best for us. Could it then be said that our warped rational minds are what tend to put us into that conformity box in the first place? That when the Will is at ease and not trying to break free, then our Will and our rational minds are at one with each other?
So then, when the subconscious, lizard brain is taking control, when the Will is exerting itself, what is it trying to tell us about our "rational" choices?
EDIT: I really like this quote above:
"...it preserves for us what is most precious and most important - that is, our personality, our individuality."
I continually say that I dislike co-dependent relationships and I also dislike the view of marriage as two halves of a whole. I believe people are whole themselves. They may still be immature and incomplete like a just-opened jigsaw puzzle, but like the jigsaw puzzle, you can't add pieces to it from another puzzle in order to make it any more of a "whole" puzzle. It is no less whole as pieces scattered across the table than the human is any less whole as scattered at different points in time along his personal timeline.
It is the exertion of the individual trying to find itself that we could call the Will. Somewhere in our minds is the finished picture of our own personal jigsaw puzzles, but we only get to see the pieces of the puzzle along with other pieces of other people's puzzles scattered about on the mental card table. Most people were born with their parents throwing their own pieces into the mix right from the start. You can only put so many pieces of someone else's puzzle onto your personal mental table before your Will begins to argue, fuss, and fight, and force you to reset and start over again. The problem is, without understanding that final picture, it's easy to keep puzzle pieces on the table that don't belong.
I've been re-reading Dostoyevsky's Notes from the Underground a little bit each night. It's been so long since I read it (high school), I had actually forgotten what the bulk of it was about. It's interesting having my neuro-and-cog-sci knowledge with which to compare the concepts he brings up.
...reason is nothing but reason and satisfies only the rational side of man's nature, while will is a manifestation of the whole life, that is, of the whole human life including reason and all the impulses. I, for instance, quite naturally want to live, in order to satisfy all my capacities for life, and not simply my capacity for reasoning, that is, not simply one twentieth of my capacity for life.
I suspect, gentlemen, that you are looking at me with compassion; you tell me again that an enlightened and developed man, such, in short, as the future man will be, cannot consciously desire anything disadvantageous to himself, that that can be proved mathematically. I thoroughly agree, it can - by mathematics. But I repeat for the hundredth time, there is one case, one only, when man may consciously, purposely, desire what is injurious to himself, what is stupid, very stupid - simply in order to have the right to desire for himself even what is very stupid and not to be bound by an obligation to desire only what is sensible. Of course, this very stupid thing, this caprice of ours, may be in reality, gentlemen, more advantageous for us than anything else on earth, especially in certain cases. And in particular it may be more advantageous than any advantage even when it does us obvious harm, and contradicts the soundest conclusions of our reason concerning our advantage - for in any circumstances it preserves for us what is most precious and most important - that is, our personality, our individuality. Some, you see, maintain that this really is the most precious thing for mankind; choice can, of course, if it chooses, be in agreement with reason; and especially if this be not abused but kept within bounds. But very often, and even most often, choice is utterly and stubbornly opposed to reason.
...
In short, one may say anything about the history of the world - anything that might enter the most disordered imagination. The only thing one can't say is that it's rational. The very word sticks in one's throat. And, indeed, this is the odd thing that is continually happening: there are continually turning up in life moral and rational persons, sages and lovers of humanity who make it their object to live all their lives as morally and rationally as possible, to be, so to speak, a light to their neighbours simply in order to show them that it is possible to live morally and rationally in this world. And yet we all know that those very people sooner or later have been false to themselves, playing some queer trick, often a most unseemly one.
...
[Man] would even risk his cakes and would deliberately desire the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to introduce into all this positive good sense his fatal fantastic element. It is just his fantastic dreams, his vulgar folly that he will desire to retain, simply in order to prove to himself - as though that were so necessary - that men still are men and not the keys of a piano, which the laws of nature threaten to control so completely that soon one will be able to desire nothing but by the calendar. And that is not all: even if man really were nothing but a piano-key, even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely do something perverse out of simple ingratitude, simply to gain his point. And if he does not find means he will contrive destruction and chaos, will contrive sufferings of all sorts, only to gain his point! He will launch a curse upon the world, and as only man can curse (it is his privilege, the primary distinction between him and other animals), may be by his curse alone he will attain his object - that is, convince himself that he is a man and not a piano-key! If you say that all this, too, can be calculated and tabulated - chaos and darkness and curses, so that the mere possibility of calculating it all beforehand would stop it all, and reason would reassert itself, then man would purposely go mad in order to be rid of reason and gain his point! I belive in it, I answer for it, for the whole work of man really seems to consist in nothing but proving to himself every minute that he is a man and not a piano-key!
What happens when someone keeps getting pressed into a box and forced to conform?
Dostoyevsky presents the argument that the person will ultimately lash out; that the Will will exert itself against the unnatural conforming.
I propose that only sometimes does the Will lash out. Most times the Will folds and gives in and conforms. Most people go with the flow, follow the herd, stick to the status quo. They do not question, and they do not grow. Some people even voluntarily place themselves in that box. It's like Erich Fromm's view of authoritarianism. (I really do need to read Escape From Freedom, as I have yet to actually do so. I'm just very, very familiar with his theories.)
What Dostoyevsky is describing is what might happen when there is a distinct LACK of Will when one is otherwise a very willful person. The less willful a person is, the more likely they will conform and not lash out. Think about the person put into a cage against their Will - they lash out trying to fight against the cage, trying to find a way out. It is before the Will has given in and conformed to the new situation, or maybe much later once the person has decided to stop conforming to that box and is ready to once again exert his Will against the box in which he has been contained for so long. The protagonist of the book speaks of following a path that goes against the rational mind, maybe even a hurtful path, yet it is still the most advantageous path because it is what is best for the psyche of the individual in that moment. The willful person would rather cut off his hand and free himself of his handcuffs than to give in and suffer whatever comes next.
There is a quote in a Thomas Mann short story that I absolutely love: "Freedom exists, and also the will exists; but freedom of the will does not exist, for a will that aims at its own freedom aims at the unknown." There are times when we act in a manner that is ultimately hurtful, yet in the moment it is the most advantageous path against all common sense and all rationality. It is the Will re-exerting itself, yet it is strangely the opposite of freedom of choice. If it were freedom of choice, then our rational mind would be in charge and would be telling us that path is wrong. There are times when we DO tell ourselves, "This is not the way to go," and yet we continue on forward because our Will wills it so.
Think about this - how often do I preach that the rational mind is bugged beyond belief? Think about what I posted the other day about how much we lie to ourselves in order to rationalize decisions that may not be the best for us. Could it then be said that our warped rational minds are what tend to put us into that conformity box in the first place? That when the Will is at ease and not trying to break free, then our Will and our rational minds are at one with each other?
So then, when the subconscious, lizard brain is taking control, when the Will is exerting itself, what is it trying to tell us about our "rational" choices?
EDIT: I really like this quote above:
"...it preserves for us what is most precious and most important - that is, our personality, our individuality."
I continually say that I dislike co-dependent relationships and I also dislike the view of marriage as two halves of a whole. I believe people are whole themselves. They may still be immature and incomplete like a just-opened jigsaw puzzle, but like the jigsaw puzzle, you can't add pieces to it from another puzzle in order to make it any more of a "whole" puzzle. It is no less whole as pieces scattered across the table than the human is any less whole as scattered at different points in time along his personal timeline.
It is the exertion of the individual trying to find itself that we could call the Will. Somewhere in our minds is the finished picture of our own personal jigsaw puzzles, but we only get to see the pieces of the puzzle along with other pieces of other people's puzzles scattered about on the mental card table. Most people were born with their parents throwing their own pieces into the mix right from the start. You can only put so many pieces of someone else's puzzle onto your personal mental table before your Will begins to argue, fuss, and fight, and force you to reset and start over again. The problem is, without understanding that final picture, it's easy to keep puzzle pieces on the table that don't belong.
