Lets Discuss the First Distortion of the Law of One--Free Will!

Spiritual & Metaphysical Matters
1

"No one can predict its path. It is this free will which touched the complete placidity of the intelligence infinity that is the nature of the Creator’s consciousness and suggested that It might, by creating a world, come to know Itself better.

And so it launched forth that one great original Thought which is unconditional love. In that thought lay the potentiality of all that was to come."
CHANNELING INTENSIVE 1, SESSION 12 Feb 12 2008

Free will distortion is the perception in our ability to consciously choose which potentials to activate within love (the original thought).
It seems that an infringement upon free will is an action that hinders one’s ability to choose potentials, is this correct?

For example lets say an entity denies offering information that infringes upon free will. Is this because offering that information that would somehow limit the available potentials from which to choose…Purely by knowing that information one is denied the potentiality of a choice?

How does this work?

Id love to hear how y’all go about daily life conscious of others’ free will, how you avoid infringement and further clarification on the free will distortion.

It seems that STS do not care if free will is violated, but for STO it is a core tenant of the philosophy and an important action to avoid accruing Karma which later has to be balanced.

Thanks!

2 Likes
2

Respecting the free will of others is a principle that involves recognizing each person’s right to make their own choices without manipulation or interference. This might include avoiding lying, manipulation, and even persuasion. We can respect free will by being transparent and honest, offering advice or new ideas only when asked for, and practicing active listening, empathy, and compassion. It’s important to understand that respecting free will is not always easy, but it’s an ideal that we can strive for in our daily lives, by being mindful of our actions and learning from our mistakes.

3 Likes
3

Very interesting questions! Thanks for sharing. Here are my thoughts and opinions on the subject.

I agree with your definition that free will is the ability to choose which potential to activate. I believe the key aspect of free will is the balance between knowing and not knowing. To make a choice, one must have enough knowledge to know what is possible to happen while simultaneously not having enough knowledge to know what will happen. If one has no knowledge of possibilities (the zero), one cannot choose a potential. Similarly, if one has all knowledge where the only potential is what will happen (the one), one cannot choose any other potential. Between the zero and the one lies free will.

Yes, I’d say so. Infringement upon free will is about limiting the potentials to which one has access (such as putting someone in a cage), limiting the knowledge of true potentials to which one has access (such as censorship and propaganda), or limiting the knowledge of false potentials to which one has access (such as telling someone their future that is still mysterious to them but not to you). These all distort the balance between knowledge and lack of knowledge.

Yes, this would fall under the category of limiting the knowledge of false potentials although it’s less about denying a choice and more about limiting the chance one will make a choice. For example, if someone doesn’t know that smoking causes cancer and someone tells them, it will be more difficult for them to choose to smoke even though it’s still possible (it’s more difficult to choose to believe in the false potential of smoking having no negative consequences). Although in this case, if someone doesn’t know, it will be more difficult for them to choose to be healthy so perhaps it is more important to have the potential to be healthy than the potential to enjoy smoking… Hence the complexity involved in the relationship between sharing information and influencing free will.

I think that STS and STO just view the importance of free will differently.

In STO philosophy, free will is important because the best service one can provide is assistance in helping others make choices without making the choices for others. One often does not view it as a service to have less of an ability to choose potentials one wants, but it is a service to have a higher ability to choose potentials one wants. For example, it is a higher service to guide a student to solve a difficult math problem than to solve it for them so they can choose to solve problems in the future without help.

In STS philosophy, free will is important because the best servants of self are those who freely choose to do so as well as being key to the management of karmic consequences. For example, a soldier who chooses to be loyal to a dictator will do much more for the dictator than someone who is forced to be a soldier. Also, a soldier who infringes on the free will of others by killing them will face more negative karmic consequences than the dictator who simply influences the soldier to do so.

1 Like
4

I think free will is indeed a “distortion”, in that all things happen deterministically. However, it is also impossible to predict one’s every perception - you have to account for your own perception of the prediction into your prediction, but that becomes an infinite loop. This is Godels incompleteness theorem as applied to conscious experience, as best as you can ever know or experience, your experience is free.

But this freedom through distortion is not empty or meaningless. It creates a true and profound dynamic even when viewed deterministically. I think to violate free will is to give people the false impression that they ever will know even a fraction of the true source or final answer to what choice they will make, and in holding that false impression, they will believe they have no choice. And that will limit their potential.

That’s my view at least. Choose your own as you will :slight_smile:

5

I searched for “cage” and found this thread. Part of
the STS paradigm can involve many forms of
enslavement and also may involve some degrees
of entrapment. Many STS types grow in status
to live in guilded cages of their own design. Lower
status types may simply be caged or imprisoned,
incompatible with functional society. I ponder some
karmic concern toward freewill as what goes around,
comes around, where degrees of ambiguity may
buffer some downstream retribution needed. Karmic
consequence may be more obvious to those of
higher density, where things like pre-incarnational
planning or programming take place after some
review and polarity assessment. I ponder bears
as potentially an STS rehab incarnation for flunky
humans. The example of “Asian Moon Bears”
that are farmed for bile, might possibly be some
situation of 3d incarnating into 2d for karmic
reasons related to say the neglect of freewill.

6

Free will means letting people make their own choices without interference. If someone withholds info, it might limit your choices. In daily life, respect others’ choices and be transparent to avoid limiting their options. For STO folks, it’s key to avoid actions that restrict others’ free will.

2 Likes
7

I think a part of Carla’s tuning and challenging
came as a guard band keeping STO teachings
at a safe distance from STS teachings. I also
think there’s some golden rule that carries karma
beyond incarnation; death doesn’t necessarily
wipe your slate clean. You’re veiled from
seeing a dirty slate and some greater reality,
but then wonder why circumstances suck,
where it seems like there is no free will, hmm?
I have met many people who feel that free will
is a sham. Could it be because not respecting
it, carries some consequence?

8

I think I was looking for this thread and answered another thread on free will. I think it is a question that is too large for a single thread.

I have thought about this a lot and applied it in my life. I would say the central tension was trying to explain things to do with this kind of thing and where conspiracy links and having people constantly reject it. In my understanding, it actually goes right down to the energy field in that there are parts of ourselves that produce information moreso subject to free will, and other parts of our energy field that produce a different energy that is not so subject to free will.

I would say how the negative and positive see free will is that the negative’s view is generally “Well that was TECHNICALLY correct” whereas the positive goes more for what the meaning of the thing is. So, it is TECHNICALLY correct that if the government produces a medical treatment with devastating side effects that is more or less voluntary, that the people volunteering to take it do have the option of going on the internet and finding said side effects (even if some mainstream sources have banned this because those individuals experience free will!). However, this is not how the positive would see free will in the positive way of seeing things there is more of an effort to allow people the other side of the argument. So the positive is more about free speech and debate and such. Even allowing views it does not personally support.

I have heard that how the negative functions to preserve free will all the way down the heirarchy is that the politicians and such doing their bidding don’t actually know what their masters wants. They just do the most apocalyptically evil thing they can think of and then watch to see who is promoted by a mysterious hidden hand of sorts.

I would say free speech is simply the Law of Free will given a different name.

In my personal life I have made an effort, and naturally gravitated towards, phrasing most of my thoughts in ways that are not overly mystical. I am interested in say, x astrology system, if someone is interested; but if they are not then the same conversation can easily be had with only reference to say… evolutionary psychology. (I have kind of decided that ethical discussions HAVE to be secular by their very nature, because if someone is expecting others to agree to their Christian ethics, which are usually just too high on magical thinking, then they have begun a conversation on ethics by forcing their interpretation of ethics on another. Secular theories of ethics get around this.)

I will give an example of a common way that free will is violated. I believe. A lot of men are really very naive about how women behave and that a lot of them spend their twenties having a lot of intimate encounters. I live in a place with a lot of parties and such, a part of the country known for degraded behaviour, and perhaps I have looks that help. If I didn’t have an invisible Chronic Disease I suspect I could follow up with a lot of the ‘half initiations’ that women in their 20’s give me.

Anyway, one way that a lot of men lived, and I have talked to men like this it is bizarre. Is they refuse to believe that women ever act like this. They believe women always go through a long courting process and whatnot like some Disney Princess. If you tell them experiences of guys that get a lot of girls they cannot take it. They will aggressively tell you you are lying to your face.

This is because of a narrative women have set up. This narrative is that they were these lovely innocent lambs that found themselves in abusive relationships because the guy was ‘such a charmer’ and all that. What has actually happened is that the woman spent a lot of time going for guys that she was excited by, the “tough guys”. Then fell for them, and then when they treated her like they predictably treat women she gets upset.

Then, after spending her twenties like this she perhaps converts to Christianity about thirty. Becomes “chaste”, and the guy she then meets has no idea how she has acted with men she is actually attracted to. Which is obviously something he would have desired, he would not like the reality that she gave herself up easily for guys she wanted and made him go though the dating process for ages.

So the lie here is very cleverly not stated. As with negative understandings of free will no one is actually responsible. She can say he didn’t ask. The congregation are not individually responsible for the sociology of everyone subtly backing up this narrative. But she paints the picture of this innocent lamb that got involved with a bad guy through no fault of her own. This lie then compels behaviour. Why would you not want to look after and give your best to this woman that had bad luck and needs to be looked after? Whereas if he was given the choice, if he was given actual facts that this is how she behaved and in some cases the women never got a formal agreement of a relationship before saying the guy was a ‘narcissist’. Then he would not feel that obligation.

This is the same with a lot of relationship issues. If someone cheats and doesn’t tell their partner the free will is effected because the person is having information withheld that would effect their choice. The cheater after that point is “stealing” a relationship. Same with paternity fraud and many other things.

In general, this is why truth is so important in my understanding, because it returns free will to people.

9

musing around the topic as a ‘Lowercase’ , i

i think that simply putting the bare feet of sense of self, in the concept of free will, makes it come in to play within our experience more prominently,

as in, By believing there is no free will, this will influence how we function in one way, and in adopting the concept, that we have some core aspect of free will at our disposal, this will influence how we function in a different way.

Our free will, resides in navigating the immediate terrain of reality,
something that, in my experience,
wearing conceptual shoes of free will, more often than not,
lays the groundwork for sustaining a pleasant experience,

as i walk around and about my day,
feeling responsible in how tend the needs of my self
and the living sense of balance between my self and my loved-ones,
Layered with how i interact with other people and challenges along the way…

free will is intimately connected with the play and practice of balance…

align and realign…

"Balance is not something we attain and conclude
It’s something we practice and refine
As the sense of it, eludes

oh, balance feels good
as a truth,
Stressful as a lie

Two fairly clear signs
two fairly trustworthy, guides"

Edit: i feel skeptical about viewing free will as a distortion, as that is implying that it´s not real on some level.
regardless if that is true or not, carrying the concept as a half truth, holds back the potential in its application.

while it does appear to be our ability act and switch lanes in the ongoing,
thus free will, in it self,
is our ability to distort our habits and choices
in order to head in other directions of momentum and flavors of experience,
and is always applied within our present sense of context.

as with any ‘Linguistic equation’, to be taken with a grain of salt :slight_smile: