Abstract and Figures

The uniqueness of each standpoint, each point of effect, can only be "overcome" by the standpoint changing to other standpoints and returning. In such alternation, which can also appear as constant change, lies the unity of the world. The entirety of an alternation, however, is a consciousness structure due to the special relationship between the circumscribing periphery and the infinitesimal center. This process structure unites determinacy and indeterminacy also totally at every place. Therefore, we are dealing with forms of consciousness everywhere, with more or less freedom of choice and an increasingly unknown depth. We live in a world of the choosing consciousness or better: awareness. In this respect, our environment expresses a deep truth about ourselves.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Claus Janew
The Reality of Free Will
(Translation from German revised)
Abstract: The uniqueness of each standpoint, each point of effect, can only be "overcome" by
the standpoint changing to other standpoints and returning. In such alternation, which can
also appear as constant change, lies the unity of the world. The entirety of an alternation,
however, is a consciousness structure due to the special relationship between the
circumscribing periphery and the infinitesimal center. This process structure unites
determinacy and indeterminacy also totally at every place. Therefore, we are dealing with
forms of consciousness everywhere, with more or less freedom of choice and an increasingly
unknown depth. We live in a world of the choosing consciousness or better: awareness. In this
respect, our environment expresses a deep truth about ourselves.
Individuality and Reality
Your Individuality is far more than a little peculiarity. It is a view that nothing and nobody
has except you. Otherwise it/he/she would be you. Also you will have changed your
perspective yourself in the next moment and you cannot turn back time.
For convenience, we come to an agreement on "common" objects, which allegedly everyone
perceives, although everyone views from his own standpoint. If you see me rolling a pen
across the table to you, you may think it is the same pen I see. However, I see something
completely different than you do. There is not the slightest match between my perception and
yours. Because otherwise I would sit in your place, have your thoughts, memories and
feelings and link with them a form rolling towards me.
If we both can speak of a single pen, it is because we have already agreed as children on what
we wanted to consider approximately as a common object and more precisely as a pen. We
did the same for ourselves before, changing our own perspective and noticing the relative
permanence of certain shapes. Should you now realize that "someone" is rolling such an
approximated object across the table, you have again briefly changed the point of view, that
is, you have put yourself approximately into his perspective and have returned to your own.
So you can conclude there is rolling a common object, which is seen "only" from different
sides. Actually, however, you have merged two indivisible perceptions over several steps into
one unit, which emphasizes a "part" of your own perception (pen) and in addition a "part" of
the perception of the other, which you have just "spied out" (pen).
The unique perspectives thus create, by mutual exchange, an approximate commonality, a so-
called real pen.
The widespread assumption of a pen independent of perspectives, in contrast, leads into the
void if one keeps asking on "what it consists of": of molecules, these of atoms, these of
Claus Janew - The Reality of Free Will 2
elementary particles, these of fields, and these of laws of change. But change of what? It is an
endless loop.
However, no concept so far is able to explain why a rolling pencil can be quite stable: Neither
does it break nor does it change direction when I just think it. I have to touch it. And then it
changes immediately for both of us (under the condition that we both look "there").
In the Perspective Exchange Concept, we must therefore assume still largely unknown (not
conscious) processes stabilizing our perception. Their effect must be in accordance with
proven physical regularities. Both conclusions are consistent.
The concept of an independent reality, on the other hand, is a crutch that is used to project
stability into objects that are not really understood, thus largely hiding individual perceptions
within them. This is not consistent.
I do not question macro- and microphysics. They describe what they are looking for, mainly
processes of "common" objects. But one must also say: If physics is not fundamental, but
everything basically remains individual, it must still be explained in other ways, and physics
does not become superfluous, but subordinate. Psychological connections will play an
important role, but they too are not fundamental enough. Rather the most abstract and simple
structures of consciousness are to be considered first.
What is Consciousness? (I)
Whatever consciousness "is" - it must have structure. Even emptiness can only be defined in
contrast to fullness and non-duality versus duality (as the word says). Or it is simply "Mu".
And that would be the end of this paper - and everything else.
I suggest we allow ourselves some time with this and try to start from a consciousness that is
as concrete as possible, from a conscious object, say a water glass. We perceive something
that we distinguish from ourselves. We also distinguish it from its environment (table,
cupboard, room) and determine it in comparison with other known things (table, cup, plate) to
what it "is". That is, we circumscribe its existence by comparisons. Likewise, it stabilizes
itself through external and internal interactions (pouring and drinking, molecular attraction
and repulsion).
We can question these interactions ever more and will never find a bottom. Biological
processes, mechanical laws of motion and physical fields remain empty without a structure
circumscribing them. That is, we can regard circumscription as a basic property of everything
conscious and thus of consciousness.
In the center of each circumscription now something arises which is enormously
underestimated up to now: the center. A single point which directly refers to the whole. In the
case of the water glass, for example, it is the center of gravity and optical center or, if the two
differ, the center circumscribed by them, and so on. Because only the whole as such has a
center. By every division new centers (those of the splinters) arise and by every change (like a
border with handle) another one. Even if the change is symmetrical (without handle): Since
Claus Janew - The Reality of Free Will 3
the midpoint, like any other point, is nothing in itself and has meaning only in relation to a
particular entirety, another entirety circumscribes another midpoint - even in the same "place"
(here the center of a bordered glass). And already the point next to the center is the center of
something else (a unity of glass and spoon for instance).
Thus, there is a unique relationship between the infinitely small - infinitesimal - center and the
circumscribing entirety. To ignore the midpoint would mean to ignore the whole. In the
periphery (edge zone), in turn, the outer boundary is definitive of the whole, thereby
emphasizing its relation to the midpoint.
Since this structure holds also for all partial areas of an object, as well as for their
relations to the entirety, in addition between center and periphery and between this
center and its periphery and so on, I call this totality infinitesimality structure or i-
structure.
Of course, the relationship between us (the object of our self-consciousness) and the more
external object is also i-structured. And if we dive into an object, we find there only different
i-structures: trembling "particles", vibrating "fields", circumscribed "laws".
So we have defined nothing less than the surface of consciousness. What we intuitively regard
as the "unity of the object" thereby condenses symbolically around the center, that is, we
perceive the unity more strongly there because at the center point it is closest to the entirety.
(Even in the empty glass: If a little bit chips off, the center hardly changes, and so it is still a
glass.) "Parts" are perceived more as peripheral, where they also "crumble" more easily. Since
consciousness is constantly in circumscribing motion and so condenses more or less static
objects, I call it quasi-static.
How is Freedom of Choice Possible?
The question of whether we can freely choose between several possibilities without imagining
this freedom or confusing it with chance leads us to the truth about our responsibility.
Because if we had to answer for something that comes from us, but was not decided by us, it
would be no more than the responsibility of a cloud for its rain.
To find the answer, we will consider the simple choice between two continuations of our day,
for example, whether to go to the cinema or to the theater. Actually, we like both equally,
though sometimes we feel more like one than the other. Today, however, we really don't care;
we might as well flip a coin. But we don't - that would be too cheap. We are thinking. We put
ourselves into the cinema, then into the theater, then back into the present, and so on. In this
way we circumscribe the entirety of the decisive situation, the present being its center. Strictly
speaking, this center is infinitely small, right in the middle of the whole circumscription with
all its details. That is, in us.
In the periphery, in turn, our perception of the cinema influences the subsequent perception of
the theater and vice versa and, again, our present and vice versa. The indeterminacy
between the determined alternatives thereby condenses to the determinacy of the decisive
Claus Janew - The Reality of Free Will 4
situation up to its exact center, which on the other hand is completely neutral, thus behaves
indeterminately. But with that, the whole situation is again indeterminate and so on.
We are not finished yet: Cinema and theater inside and outside, as well as the routes to them
with all details are likewise circumscribed by the movement of our attention. Instead of letting
our thoughts circle around a cinema, we might as well wander to the subway and the dance
club and forget about the theater. Instead, we intentionally focus on those weighings between
goals, seating, access routes. That is, the determinacy/indeterminacy structure also applies to
every detail of the trade-off process. And thus small decisions are due everywhere. We cannot
escape this decision-making structure anywhere it is an i-structure (infinitesimality
structure).
This process structure unites determinacy and indeterminacy also totally at every place.
For in that both refer to each other and merge into each other towards the center of the
entirety thus circumscribed, they are precisely there no longer even partially separated.
So, where is the respective "point" of decision? Obviously not in the neutral center between
the alternatives, but between center and periphery, in just that center between determinacy
and indeterminacy. Wherever that is exactly. Because "that" can always only be in-between,
otherwise it would be a side. One can only "limit" it, but never fix it. It is actually distributed
throughout the whole process and concentrates only around central places - alltogether in us,
but in the direction of our goals and between them.
From this i-structured unity of the subunits not merely can, but must come a free decision.
This is the only possibility, the only meaningful description. It does not matter that for
outsiders the choice could also have been predominantly random or conditional. Coincidences
and conditions such as weather and timetables naturally entered into the decision and limited
its scope in the peripheral area of the process. But the periphery is just one side of the whole -
one of the non-decisive ones.
What is Awareness? (I)
The uniqueness of each standpoint, each point of view, can obviously only be "overcome" by
changing the standpoint to other standpoints. And returning. In such alternation alone, which
can also appear as constant change, lies the unity of the world.
The grasping of this dynamic unity exceeds mere consciousness because Consciousness (I)
always tends to circumscribing condensation, that is, to the formation of symbolic, quasi-
static objects. In contrast, the change to other standpoints other individual attitudes is
naturally more open. The perception of this alternation I therefore call awareness.
Awareness, then, is never "fixed." It is always the becoming of something else, more precisely
of many others: It is constantly arising from this alternating movement and consists only in it.
It is thus also perception of potential.
But whose potential? No, not ours, if by "our" a quasi-static self-image is meant. For such an
image would already be largely fixed. Instead, in order to change, for example, from the
Claus Janew - The Reality of Free Will 5
individuality of an official to that of an amateur artist, the official must be "dissolved" and
condensed anew into the artist. Not the official has moved, but the alternation between one
and the other has been differently coiled. In the process, both the official and the artist are
aware of their alternative selves. Moreover, both are aware of the potential points of view on
the way from the office to the studio and back again. And they are furthermore aware of the
possible attitudes in the cinema or theater. And of the different positions within the office, the
studio and the home.
Awareness changes with each attitude, but it includes all potential standpoints. Sometimes
one has priority - it is more real and less potential - sometimes the other. Sometimes the
awareness is more limited, for example to the pages of a file, then again more open with a
view into life. But even in the file the artist occasionally comes into play, and in the artist the
pedant. And at home, both of them.
Mentally we alternate faster than psychically or physically, because psyche and body are
more "fixed." The psychic alternation structure is more deeply convoluted, and also the body
is the result of relatively stable alternations ("interactions"), which we hardly overlook. But
strictly speaking there is no place where we can say "Now we have changed position",
because "we" consist exclusively of convoluted alternations. There is basically only
awareness.
But who is aware of the alternation of awareness? A nice trick question.
In reality, awareness is always alternation between other awareness, namely between
perspectives of the whole alternation. Awareness, as said, changes the rank, the hierarchy of
potential attitudes. When the "officialdom" speaks, the inspiration is mostly silent and vice
versa. What the official is also aware of, however, is the subordination of his awareness in the
awareness of the artist (and so on). With the awareness then also the whole nesting of
descending priorities, points of view, and turns alternates.
So what are we aware of in a nutshell?
Everything unique is contained in everything unique.
Alternation of uniqueness is the most natural thing in the world.
The Reality Funnel What is Consciousness? (II)
In What is Consciousness? (I) we have considered the formation of i-structures by
circumscription and in What is Awareness? (I) the alternation of perspective as such. But
basically both are one and the same.
Circumscribing movement consciousness is of course an alternation of individual points
of view. And the perception of an alternation awareness circumscribes also a constant
center. The difference between emphasized circumscription and emphasized alternation lies in
the density of the circumscribed central area. If the circumscribing alternation (for example
between facades) forms an object (a house), the content-dense center symbolizes its unity
Claus Janew - The Reality of Free Will 6
("being inside"). If the alternation is perceived more as such, the object character is thin ("Is it
several houses or one?").
The maximum of the unity is in the intuitive center point, whereas the maximum of the
alternation consists in the alternation itself. That is, the alternation is authoritative and the
circumscription is derived. (Without facades no inside either.)
Now, however, the "trace" of the alternation (of the facade run) is more or less wound
together in the memory, that condensed, and the respective awareness is only incompletely
conscious of the entire alternation (for instance between three bare walls with corners and a
few windows). The rest (more windows, attic, back wall) leads into the just-not-conscious,
into a narrowing.
Awareness does include consciousness of this transition ("closer, backward"). Yet
consciousness is in a sense the "upper" section of awareness, whereas awareness as such also
encompasses the just-not-conscious "further down" by alternating with it. This is more than a
pointwise transition or a coagulated potential. From the alternation between conscious and
subconscious, awareness "receives", so to speak, impressions and inklings that escape the
more static consciousness ("a chamber somewhere").
Altogether, consciousness resembles a funnel, the edge of which represents the
circumscribing (alternating) movement, which condenses and narrows inwardly and merges
with the funnel stem into the just-not-conscious. Only the center point of the whole movement
always remains conscious. Awareness, in contrast, follows the stem to the other side ("to the
back, around the corner"), that is, it changes into the consciousness there, whose stem leads
back again.
The difference is not strict: Consciousness is always awareness! Awareness is also conscious,
but points beyond that and always involves more than is just now conscious. Alternation
cannot be fixed approximately. With consciousness we only try to ignore it, and then its own
changeable nature slips away from us, the awareness, from which it "spirals out."
The connection of awareness and consciousness has also been indicated in
Individuality and Reality: By the alternation of individual perception a common
approximation is constructed, a conscious reality (a rolling pen, a house). Because the
alternating winding is condensed during the approximation formation and the alternating
standpoints "disappear" in the funnel stem, we do not overlook the reality formation.
However, since consciousness always creates approximate commonalities, the consciousness
funnel is a reality funnel. It creates reality out of the funnel stem by approximating
individualities to one consciousness, but at no point by renouncing them. Everything remains
awareness.
Some aspects may also become clear from the following figures:
Claus Janew - The Reality of Free Will 7
Figure 1: Shown above is the circumscribing condensation in the reality funnel. Below, a
possible top view shows how the alternation of perspective condenses into an apparently static
object consciousness.
Claus Janew - The Reality of Free Will 8
Figure 2: Here, Figure 1 is summarized and further simplified. This time I emphasized the
overall movement of perspective and the resulting spatial object awareness.
All That Is What is Awareness? (II)
If every perspective is individual and if structures only arise from circumscribing alternations,
then alternation cannot be limited to the Awareness (I) of a human being. Rather, every
standpoint, every place of effect must alternate and emerge from alternations. (Ultimately, it
is the alternation of infinitely small points of an i-structure defined in
What is Consciousness? (I).
This consequence entails others:
1. We must basically be able to put ourselves into the individual awareness of other
people (and even non-human). Indeed, we empathize with others; otherwise we could
not communicate with them. We at least approximate their standpoints repeatedly and
thus converse with persons who are similar to them. If we were to put ourselves
completely into their position, our consciousness would quickly be overwhelmed and
would have to repress most of it into the subconscious.
2. The change of a standpoint is the change of the whole reality (a rearrangement of the
Reality Funnel), namely from a foreseen, probable reality to an even more probable
one, the current reality. While one reality takes precedence, the others fall into their
Claus Janew - The Reality of Free Will 9
subordinate position. They become or remain potential, just as the one now taking
precedence did. But they do not disappear: They are still aware standpoints.
A standpoint as a place of effect, as a momentary summit of reality and center of structure-
forming changes, goes far beyond what we normally understand by "consciousness." Such a
point can be everywhere, in an ant, in a star, in a vacuum. It would be meaningless if no
alternation culminated in it, no circumscription determined it. There is ultimately only
alternation as such all-encompassing and therefore infinitely fast: All That Is.
If alternation forms a circumscription (ant, star, space), it begins to prefer this particular
movement to others and to filter it out, as it were. Through interwoven repetition, the
movement appears slower, although the all-encompassing alternation still goes on. Only it is
now largely hidden (deep in the stem of the reality funnel).
Since circumscribing forms create from the beginning what we have recognized as
consciousness (Consciousness I), we can also speak of an all-encompassing
consciousness.
Since alternation never stops and only takes place between more or less conscious
standpoints (Consciousness II), we recognize an all-encompassing awareness.
Since consciousness also means Freedom of Choice, we are dealing with a choosing
all-encompassing awareness.
Some would call it "God" - a god who "lives" in everything and everyone, since everything is
a phase of his movement. At the same time, "He" is on such an unimaginable path that his
decisions are eventually "unfathomable." On the other hand, our decisions are part of his. That
means, what we decide is important. It creates another awareness of All That Is, a unique
hierarchy of consciousness, a complete reality.
And only our reality follows our path. Even in God, it is new.
Subconscious Free or Not?
If we combine the results from Consciousness I and Consciousness II as well as Awareness I
and Awareness II, the following picture emerges:
What exists for us in the circumscribing alternation of perspectives as their common
approximation, we are conscious of.
If perspectives slip away from the approximation, we can still be aware of them. They
exist as such in constant alternation.
Everything dynamically (i.e. alternately) existing transitions funnel-like from the most
conscious "opening" via a perspectively "narrowing" stem into an awareness that we
can call subconscious.
This subconscious ultimately extends to All That Is.
Subconscious things therefore exist even if we do not consciously "look." Because
subconsciously we always look (again and again). We are "disappearingly" aware of All That
Claus Janew - The Reality of Free Will 10
Is. That means, we are "alternately" connected to it and can also expand this awareness. But
we can also dive down into this awareness with the focus of our consciousness, widen the
funnel stem only in certain places and return richer - in knowledge, hunches and sensations.
What are we conscious of there? What do we discover when we dive in? Other worlds, other
ways of connecting, the essence of other people? Yes, and every day and most of all at
night. We can learn to bring back more of these impressions. But even without this, we
discover much of our own essence here.
Let's expand our list of insights by one more point and take into account our
Freedom of Choice with the second one:
Since consciousness and awareness only defer in the degree of emphasis of the
circumscribed central area, both are a single i-structure.
An i-structure chooses its further change within the constraints imposed on it by
"other" i-structures.
We seem to be surrounded by such constraints. Already what our neighbor decides can impair
us, and the doorframe is not even possible to talk to. But let us remember that all awareness is
a hierarchy of probable realities with the most probable here and now. So when we choose a
different reality funnel, all probable realities restructure for us. However, these realities
continue to exist as themselves. Even their respective top-positions exist within awareness,
just not here and now for us.
We don't have to defeat our neighbor at all, then, because in another reality he has long since
consented. We must only choose this reality. (He may well do the same with that reality in
which we have consented.) In order to do this, our focuses in other affected areas of life
should be in agreement with this choice. That is, we should harmonize in our awareness the
hierarchy of our own inner choices. Then the neighbor goes where we both want him to go.
(Even the version in which we both choose mirror-invertedly, we are aware of without
contradiction, just not here and now as a priority.)
How come the doorframe is so solid? It's not: Take a sledgehammer and smash it to pieces!
But I think you want the frame. You want the earth and the sun. You want conditions. Why
just these conditions that would be a question to that subconscious, in which we hope to find
more of our essence.
Probability Thinking
If we weigh between two alternatives, say between job A and job B, then we weigh between
their respective precedence. Each job has a certain probability of realization, which can
change during the weighing, whereupon the probability of the other one adjusts immediately.
That is, if we prefer job B, job A becomes less probable, but remains available in the
background for a while. With job B we choose an individual probability hierarchy as such to
our reality.
Claus Janew - The Reality of Free Will 11
What about the other applicants? They and their decisions are also part of our probability
hierarchy. They are aspects of our individual Awareness, which altogether decides for a new
individual reality, a new probability hierarchy. This means in reverse: The other applicants
have their own awareness and choose their own probability hierarchies. In the respective
awareness, we all meet, but do not merge.
If we now decide for job B through and through, the others consequently choose job A or C
in our reality. More or less consciously. Analogous applies to the others in their realities.
There is no contradiction, for in every individual reality, from every perspective, it is a
common choice. Even after I get job B, I can be aware of my alternative realities in job A
or C, so that the individual realities intermesh, interact. It may therefore not be easy to come
to terms with oneself through and through. But once this is achieved, the corresponding
reality inevitably follows.
There is also no perspective in which everyone chooses job B through and through, because in
the application situation the individual preliminary decisions of all applicants (and many
others) for certain working conditions already converge: Only one can have the job, not
everyone for an hour or all at the same time. And so an all-want-job-B-through-and-through-
situation would contain an inner contradiction that urges resolution from the outset: through
different choices of the applicants. Preferably "in time", but also shortly before the contract is
signed. Please observe yourself in your job application situations: I bet you basically know
beforehand wether you'll get the job - and actually agree (deep down, mostly). As notorious
doubters, we just like to "play hardball" and get confirmation from the hiring manager.
Nevertheless: The final decision of all parties involved may, if they want it, only be made at
the last moment.
Strongly simplified because more descriptive we can perceive all individuals as "cones" of
their probable changes: We all move together like spirits (or ghosts) at a certain distance from
each other under a single fabric of probabilities that adapts to our shapes and movements. The
fabric shows the "visible" interweaving of our options and decisions, and hints at even more
potential underneath. We have to coordinate our decisions for one or the other direction of
movement at least roughly with those of all other spirits, so that we don't warp the fabric too
much or get entangled in it. The priorities and thus the probability shapes adapt to each other
until they predominantly harmonize.
The probability of developments as a fifth dimension besides space and time lets us not only
see in black and white, but lets us acknowledge manifold alternatives in the background,
which surround us like waves. This in turn leads to a more conscious cooperation with others
and an expanded awareness of our possibilities.
The next illustrations show Berta's "elective relationships":
Claus Janew - The Reality of Free Will 12
Figure 3: As Berta changes her mind from Job A to Job B, which suits her better, her
perceived alternatives reshuffle in the probability hierarchy.
Claus Janew - The Reality of Free Will 13
Figure 4: Berta's awareness is in a joint decision-making and attuning process with that of her
rival Alf. If she prefers Job B, he has to choose Job A. Both are aware of their alternative
existences in the respective other Job and also of their alternative rival. They form their own
as well as a collective probability hierarchy, which together from the conscious to the
subconscious decide on a priority new overall structure - for example, the one in which Berta
has Job B and Alf has Job A. The alternative overall structure drops down just like Berta's
"single" alternatives in Figure 3.
Is There a Constant Reality?
If we can exist only in the constant change of the point of view (sensory, psychic, mental) and
this must apply analogously to every place of effect (hardly has it worked, it is different), how
then stability, something constant arises?
Of course, by repeating the alternation: of thought, of way of looking at things, of mutual
confirmation, of effect. Quite exactly, the change can be repeated only for an infinitely short
moment; then it must already reach beyond the repetition in order not to cancel itself out. That
is, it changes altogether and thereby remains open. For stabilization, approximate repetition is
sufficient, though. So we believe approximately the same thing for a long time.
Claus Janew - The Reality of Free Will 14
Why again do we repeat ourselves at all? Because otherwise everything would disappear
again immediately, existing only for an infinitely short moment. But if something has gained
minimal stability and thus formed an entirety, this can have a further stabilizing effect, since a
change with it as such now also contains more repetition: Each alternation contains its sides,
after all, and thus "brings" something from each side into the other. If one of them is relatively
constant, the other one is "addressed" again and again in a similar way and thus "seduced" to
constancy. Or it loses the connection at some point.
In the so-called "matter" it happens not differently: It stabilizes itself in this way in molecular
interactions thus forming mountains, table and climate. Since it is nothing but small and big
alternations of the place of effect, the whole alternation can be traced in principle up to the
human brain and its mind - and vice versa from the mind into its brain into its environment.
We find manifold intermediate stabilizations of emotional-mental, mechanical,
electromagnetic, other and unknown kind, all contributing to our relatively steady world, but
never self-contained.
Now, however, the entirety of an alternation is, as described, a consciousness structure (see
Consciousness I and Consciousness II). Consequently, we are dealing with forms of
consciousness everywhere - with more or less Freedom of Choice (see there as well as
Subconscious) and an increasingly unknown depth (see Awareness I and Awareness II). We
live in a world of the choosing consciousness or awareness. So constancy is willed.
We humans, for example, create legal laws; animals, plants and bacteria form their own social
rules; and the inter-actions of "matter" also fit into regularities, so-called "laws of nature."
However, from the relative openness of every alternation system follows equally that it can
change at any time with a certain probability. Therefore, even "laws of nature" must be
relative in some way.
Their stability in experimentation is based - like that of our living world - on relatively closed
"collective" interrelationships. They mean the far-reaching exclusion of alternative paths of
alternation and favor mutual "dependencies." What we believe, we look for and find with
higher probability, and what we mostly find, we believe. We alternate there again and again,
with all others pointing us to it, and suppress the seemingly inappropriate "rest". Ultimately,
what is found and what is believed are inseparable and possible deviations are aberrant. And
we are even right about that: Our Reality Funnel is established.
Only of what we cannot change despite deliberate openness, we do not yet know why it
resists. On the other hand, it would also be strange if we had unlimited potential with limited
knowledge of the world - or if we understood our deepest intentions.
Truth, Harmony, and Free Will
The stem of the Reality Funnel summarizes the alternation of the less conscious standpoints
"perspectively". But if they don't only jump around there, they also have a closer effect on
each other and are wound in places to cores which connect many perspectives harmoniously.
(Without harmony they would fall apart again.)
Claus Janew - The Reality of Free Will 15
Such a comparatively harmonious core as, for example, our inner self can hold our
Awareness (I) together, and from it probably emanate more comprehensively harmonizing
impulses for thought and action than from the adjusting roles of our little ego. On the other
hand, this ego can often handle everyday situations better. Therefore, it is best that both
devote themselves to their own subject and benefit only from the skill of the other. We can
feel such a harmony like a beautiful concert. If, instead, the ego is once completely in line
with the inner self, we can speak of unity, but hardly of harmony: The connection is too rigid
and the duet probably short.
Harmony can thus be translated as meaningful correspondence and leads to a
correspondingly meaningful definition of truth: The more unity or harmony there is of a
content of consciousness with the respective more comprehensive level, the truer it is.
Mutually retroactive alternations (interactions) thus lead to a loose hierarchical structure in
which truth is standpoint-dependent, but not too much so. The individual truths meet in a
center that is much less mobile within their convoluted awareness. Only when their awareness
expands, even deeper truths are included, which relativize the previous center on an even
more comprehensive level.
If we imagine the reality funnel once again, inner inspirations come through the funnel stem,
whether impulses, ideals or sensations (all focuses of consciousness, since there is only
perceived alternation). On the other hand, the most conscious circumscription occurs at the
funnel edge, and the center of the overall circumscription lies exactly on the funnel axis. And
this is where it gets exciting:
As explained about Freedom of Choice, we make decisions somewhere between center and
periphery. But the total circumscription "disappears" now into the funnel stem! It is
condensed - "perspectively" up to a stronger convolution and finally coincides with the
funnel axis. Whether a decision is free or determined by an inner impulse, therefore, cannot be
distinguished in the end any more! Impulses we can make ourselves conscious only further
above, where we then also may deviate from them.
Do we have reason to doubt our inspirations? That depends on whether they arise from our
deepest essence and from our harmony with it. For truth is, as I said, unity or harmony with
the respective more comprehensive level. More comprehensive interconnectedness, however,
distinguishes precisely an essence from each of its appearances. Therefore, the deeper the
origin of an inspiration, the more probable and the more our deepest essence is involved in it
and the more trustworthy it is. And vice versa: The more authentically we express our deepest
inner self, the more trustworthy we are ourselves.
Yet this means even more: If we are not conscious of having chosen certain "conditions" of
our live, but these must have been chosen due to our logical conclusions, it stands to reason
that this choice takes place on a more comprehensive level and is significantly determined by
our innermost essence. In this respect, our environment expresses a deep truth about
ourselves.
https://free-will.de Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.