The Story of Free Will

Simply, free will is our ability to speak what we are into existence. We tell stories about ourselves. We take these stories (knowledge) to be what we are and what existence is. We can discuss these stories here, in fact, we use stories to discuss stories here, and when we do so, we begin to test the reality of these stories. Yet, we then take our story about the story to be actuality (abstraction). We describe objects, and essentially experience those objects as what we are describing (or, we experience objects and then describe them, nevertheless the order of of this perceived experience, both the described and experienced objects are considered and felt to be the same. Our body is where we experience this connection, our mind is where we create its story. This is our power. This is our will. We are free to speak and tell stories about whatever we wish into existence. We then take these stories and exchange them, a mutual experience of willful manipulation occuring through our communication and stories about each other (ultimately ourselves and the world). We separate our stories into self and not self. Furthermore, this is what then relates at every level of knowledge or story telling as opposites/felt opposition. That which is us, and that which is not us. That which we describe as being one thing, and that which is not that one thing. This exists at every level of understanding (story). The struggle between manipulating and being manipulable. We also incur a feeling of being a self that experiences manipulations and also manipulates. I am willing your right now, as you read this. You may choose to respond, and begin manipulating or expressing your will upon me. This is the story of creation. This is the story of free will.

We can create a negative story or a positive story, the decision is ours

Two Distinct Ontological Actualities, or Epistemilogical?

What we have termed physical is made up of particular properties, just as the mental has a different set of properties. We distinguish the two because they are different in our experience of them. Unfortunately, because the properties of the physical are more present to us, at least from an objective (which I’m defining as a shared subjectivity) standpoint, we have taken them to be more primal or essential than the mental properties. This is why the mind/body problem exists.

The mental isn’t physical and vice versa, but we must recognize that the mental and the physical are just concepts placed upon particular experiences of our reality. The concepts confine the experiences to particular realm, and so we should not attempt to combine the realms (they are distinctive, and its why we use concepts in the first place); but we should acknowledge that our ideas about the differentiation between physical and mental are secondary to the primal reality of their unitary experience. From that unitary perspective, the mental and physical are one, a monistic experience. At the level of pure experience, one cannot separate the mind from the matter. It is only when we begin to describe them that we can denote their differences.

So what does this all mean? Well, for me, I understand this to mean that ultimately, mind and matter are one. We can never separate our felt experience of looking at a tree, and the tree itself. They always show up together in experience.

Points of Reference and God

The mind/identity is the reference point. Where the feeling of existece
is happening. Where life is being felt from. It all centers around my
point. It's all about me

God is myself but without reference. It is the connection between all
things, essentially what I am, but without the limitation and ties to
a particular manifesation of existence.

The closer we are to ourselves and our own interests of referential
identity, the more evil we are (out for the self/the devil). The more
we identify less with ourselves and own reference and towards the non-
referentiality of God, the more good we are (caring about others,
taking others into consideration).

Because we are always coming from a point of reference our expansion
into God will always be selfish, but that is because God is our self
as well. This is the reason why we can identify and expand further
into it. So essentially we become less referential and more non
referential.

Mentality and Physicality: The Connective Language of Separation

All of this is new so I'll admit it is a bit difficult for me to express. Let me try to approach it from another way. Let's take mentality and physicality. Though this isn't entirely accurate, it could be said that mentality is simply the story of existence. It is the narrative and thoughtful counterpart to what we understand and feel as physicality. We think and feel because what we are is communicating both outwardly to the world around us and back inwardly to ourselves. The communication inward is experienced as mentality (subjectivity, thought, abstraction, and reflection, our interpretations and stories about what we are), while the outward communication is considered physicality (the objective, our perceptions, whatever we experience and feel to be communicated from the "outside" can be said to have a physical basis). The two are inseparable, as existence is the simultaneous expression (the communication of what we are outwardly to whatever exist beyond our bodies) and reception/feeling (being what we are inwardly) of a thing as it is. Outwardly that shows up as something perceivable or receivable to others, objective. Inwardly it shows up as something perceivable and receivable to oneself, subjective. Language is a complex form of this communication. It further propels the natural communication of existence inwardly and outwardly. Language, communicating existence (which is experiencing (at least in human form) itself as being something (mentally an identity and physically a body)), is ultimately a communication of identity because it is utilized within and oriented from the mental realm of identity. The communication of identity (or what we are, for instance if we "are" hungry, we will communicate hunger) through language is a connection between the identity (I am or we "are") and the physical or objective realm (what my body feels, eg. the feeling of hunger is physical) through an identification of that realm as the language or communication.

I feel and perceive the visual experience of the computer screen in front of me. The word computer is not the actual object of my perception, but instead it is for me the connection between my identity or feeling of existence and the object I am experiencing. In this way the object is a part of what I am, as it pertains and contributes to my experience of existence and identity, but we have an ability to detach the object from our subjectivity through the language. In essence, though language is the connection between the identity and feeling of existence and all the objects of that existence, it is simultaneously the separation or separating of objects from each other (including the subjective self as an object). The computer is no longer just a sense I am experiencing as my existence, but is now a termed object that I can talk about separate from myself in the realm of language. Because I have termed the identity of the object (in this case the computer), instead of just relating the computer to myself and own identity, I can relate it to another identified object. In this way, all of language is metaphorical as any identified object must relate to another (the initial being the identity or I). This means the language is utilized to communicate the realm In this way, the language or communication, because it is being shared, becomes the experience of identity All of language orients from the identity, both the feeling and mental communication of being something.

The evolution of Interpretation:

Language was initially a communication of the subject and it's feelings or physical desires (whatever it was and felt in the moment), eg. "I am". As it evolved, language began to encompass what is outside of the initial feeling of existence or being, ie. the objects of feeling and existence/identity. This is the second level of language. Even further, identities and terms were established for the environment, which were then utilized to connect back to the feeling of identity. For example, "I am hungry" (the second level of language) becomes "I am hungry, give me food" (third level). As language evolved further, the feeling of existence and identity (being) had to further become engulfed and identified as the language and communication itself. This identification with the language happens at the first level of communication and language and as the language evolves and becomes more complex, the identity maintains this identification with the language. Because the language is felt and experienced as the identity (as the language is identified with based on its formation), it can be considered a narration of the identity. The narration becomes the expression of the identity, eg. I am hungry is an expression of feeling hunger. Because we identify and express our identities through the language, what we are perpetuates a growing interest in the narration itself. This is the mark of the fourth level language. Once the objects are named and a language is in place, an interpretation or story about how the objects appear and feel in existence can be created. This perpetuation occurs through what can be referred to as a pseudo-objectification or separation of the subject and its feelings and what it is trying to explain or tell a story about in the environment.

Narrative Free Will: A Story of Identity

We experience life through how it makes us feel; in turn, we create a story that actualizes the feelings (through what we term knowing and understanding) towards a utilization or expression of identity (eg. we might create a story that says "I decided to walk across the street) that perpetuates and creates an expressive existence back into the environment. More simply, we experience and feel action upon us which is considered to be outside of ourselves, develop a story about the action which in turn guides or narrates the re-action or response. We are a perpetual feedback system of narrative identity. Our narration provides a sense of choice. Because the narration is real and taken to be reality (it's how we make sense of sense), it becomes our explanation of will.

Free will only exists as the story we make up about the expression of what we are.
It is the feeling of our actualization interpreted as a story of
identity, ie. it is literally our narration of what we are (the story is one of "I am..."). The dichotomy arrives because the actualization and creation of who we are is impressed upon by what we perceive from the story as being outside of us while at the same time we feel and experience the process of creation from within that process. Because our stories are ones of identity, the interpretations of experience relate the experiences as orienting from the place of "I"; the point of reference.

Ultimately, the story is just a reference point for what is happening everywhere, experiential life. Because our identities and ultimately what we consider ourselves to be are just a story of reference (real in its own small relative existence), the experience of will is the actualizing of that which is in the process of happening. The actualization, which is an actualization of existence and ultimately identity, is what existence is, the feeling of being and existing as something. Will is the feeling of being and existing as something is what we term will, while the story relates that feeling to an identity or aspect of existence (the point of existential reference). So "we" (the identities) aren't doing the willing, but what we are or consider ourselves to be is literally the narrative experience of will. Because we experience the story as a reference (referring to the identity or I) to identity as our identity and existence, the story maintains a referential reality in itself. So at the level of the story, because of its relative and referential reality, will does exist because it is experienced from that position. Will isn't free. We are absolutely dependent upon the rest of the world and the story of the world to assist in the creation of our own experience of will, but we are simultaneously experiencing will and an actualization of what we are as the feeling of will.

It can be argued that just as our physical realities are naturally occurring, the stories about the experience naturally arise as well. Therefore we are only sensing and experiencing what is naturally happening. Life is happening, and because we are life, we are happening. The idea or narrative about the happening is just as real as the happening because it is a part of the happening, ie. it is not separate from the happening; it is an element of the entire experience of life. The issue comes about through an identification (the feeling of being or existing as something) with the story, as that is naturally where identity arises (from the story).

The story and interpretation (the reflecting inward) is willed back
outward as the expression of actuality. The will exist in the creation
of the story/interpretation. It is the freedom to orient and be
oriented by the story (the freedom to exists). I'm free to be oriented by my surroundings unconsciously, and I'm free to exact and interject my story of
existence into the larger story that is being communicated. This is
will. It is the how and meaning that further propels existence.

Meaning is how something feels, how that something is perceived or shows up in
existence. Language connects us to and refers back to the feeling of
how whatever shows up in existence.

Shared history is culture. The interpretation of ourselves
historically through what we are experiencing in the moment manifests
as our way of life (culture).

Each of us is writing a unique expression of history in the story of life

Ultimately, we create a story outward from our bodies. Life emits life from itself outward at every point in existence. This emission is an animation, it is an actualization of existence into perpetual perception and experience. What we are is an actualizing of experience as existence through felt expression (communication at every level of existence) radiating outward from any point within that existence or expression.

How does myth relate to our history? Trace the roots of life comparing
the major myths of particular nations through connecting the history
of those myths to major religions. Our interpretations are our
history. How we define ourselves is literally our life experience. We
are mentally and physically connected through our body experiences.
Books are our history. Written and past language, or stories are
utilized in the sharing of meaning. Our communication with each other occurs on various levels, what we communicate is ourselves or our identity (what we are in this existence). The first level of communication is outwardly perceptible, it is the physical manifestation of expression, it can be considered the orienting out of existence. This physical manifestation is any and every aspect of what pertains to the physical

We communicate ourselves and existence (the manifestation of who we are at every level) outward, giving ourselves to that which is around us, while simultaneously receiving the other communicators that are giving themselves to us. The going in experience is the actualization of meaning, the reflection upon the information or energy communicated. This reflection is what we call perception.

Language is meaning, the Word. Meaning is derived from how whatever is being known feels like to the experiencing entity. Once feeling and meaning have occurred, an expression of that meaning as the "felt experience of being or existing" is naturally communicated outward. The process is a feedback loop. We are being expressed upon and ultimately created through our taking in of that which we are experiencing (the whole of our experience), which in its actualization produces an experience of expressiveness back outward of what the experience is like (what it feels like) from the position of the experiencing entity. Knowing is the experience of what life is from a position of reference. This is experienced on the level of the body (sensation) all the way inward into the space of a literal inversion of concrete sensation into the more abstract levels we experience and understand as thought, the stringed together story about the experience.

One language through which meaning exacts itself into life (literally
our entire existence). The structure of language consist of
containers of meaning. Our stories and interpretations are the willing of life into itself as its existence. Our abstractions come back outward from ourselves into the world, shaping our actions and overall existence as whatever it is we are becoming or being, ie. existing as.

Pain and love is what we are. Give and take, push and pull.

Put and give life and love into your expression. Put your full
attention into whatever the moment offers.

Each of us is writing a unique expression of history in the story of
life. We are communicating the expression of life.

We communicate what we are reflected in the myiad stories and meaning
(language containers/archetypes) of experience. What we are is the
expression or "is-ness" of our conscious experience, our existing. The
communication is a writing or expressing of existence. It is an
offering of who and what you are, what you feel and are existing as,
into the presnt moment. We are the exacting, formulation, and
actualization of meaning.

Everything Is Us

We seperate from our bodies. Mind is a complete turnaway from what our
bodies feel. It is the sensing outside of ourselves as something else.
It is an orientation of feeling towards ourselves. This happens like
an exchange of currency. We are all in the same spot, but we exchange
energy (an expendature, giving away of some aspect ourselves, this
might relate to meaning, it may not be accessible by thought). Thought
is the way back. It is the connection between the enironment and the
body. All the way in, and all the way out.


Thought is the orientation of feeling toward and away from ourselves. It is structured
gradiently both completely going in, and 3 dimensionally going
outwards into a meeting of the middle. The middle is conscious
experience, the center of our own inter-personal, inter-subjective, and inter-objective existence.

Conscious experience is a small container of identity and experienced existence. It is a point of reference for the centered experience of all things either as oneself or not oneself.



Everything Is a distraction. Going outside of our bodies. Matter Is a
manifestation of ourselves going outward. What we are is both meaning
and pure existing as that which Is us. We interpret what we are. One
orientation of ourselves is inward. The other is outward. What we
experience is what we are. Our inner life and thoughts are
our subjective comparison. One thing is 'something'. One thing is not
'something'. The 'something' is that which we are thinking about or
connecting to physically through feeling. It all relates to what we consider ourselves to be. A story about what we or more properly existence considers itself to be.


A body is death. Every thought is a connection to whatever it is we are
experiencing. And every thought is whatever we are at that moment.
Interpretation is a comparison or separation of a self (personality);
a self compared to (being utlized through interpretation) that which
is outside of ourselves. How close we get to ourselves is an
acceptance of our body as it is and our experience is our relationship
to the rest of the physical space we exchange energy with. The energy
itself is mental/physical or inner/outer or more properly a sharing of
inner/outer space. We literally are what we and everything else is at any
given moment (middling or sharing of inner and outer experience.)
Everything is connected to ourselves as what we are or what we
experience ourselves to be, our conscious experience is only a piece of this connective whole.

Everything is us.