Why the Will is Free

Suppose one asked you to make a judgment about another's internal language. What do I mean by this? Consider that each of us first translates anything we hear to something we recognize and understand. By this I mean that we're all connected in a familiar way - the mind processes things it reads and decodes them into the sights we see, the things we hear and taste and touch: perceptions.

Decoding is a complicated process that's poorly understood, but the gist is that a message is sent through some means by God to the individual person, who reads out the message and then interprets it to mean something. This is done by all humans - and by God - as they deduce existence they can perceive from the perfect, fully-real imperceivable forms. Forms like "circle" - a perfect circle - forms like "square" - a perfect square - and so on.. things we all know in concept but could never produce ourselves. This is what makes forms so important: they are the things we all strive towards, even as we can never exactly reach them.

Can God make a perfect circle? No. But he can get a lot closer than we do. This is why we ride on his coattails - to get that head start on the highway to forms. The forms highway is rough and rigid and single-directioned, so without another to pave the way it's quite easy to get lost. Get lost, for example, in the depths of a wall which isn't a form and isn't anything - but you think it might be; akin to banging your head on bricks. Getting lost, for example, in trying to *obtain* the form instead of nearing to it as much as possible - the latter of which is productive while the former drives you mad. One who searches for the thing he can never find is mad, but those who approach it are blessed.

There's something peculiar about language in particular that makes it so important to the general scheme of things - it's an absolute, like a form. That is, the language itself, though used, is never entirely itself understood. That is, each of us acknowledges that we use a language, but how it comes about is a permanent mystery. When one attempts to decode the language of another - suppose, say when he writes a contract: an attempt to determine what it is he and another have in common speech such that a mutual agreement might be carried out; the man admits the freeness of his will by interpreting a thing he cannot interpret - more correctly, by attempting to approach a thing - by acting to obtain a thing - that is unattainable. No machine can do this. No person confined to his environment can do this, because it is an end, a goal of action, distinctly outside the environment.

If things outside the environment can be attained - or approached - this makes the way for one to either approach it or obtain it - the former of which is at least possible and the later of which is not. There are crucial factors to consider in this analysis. Consider that when one "obtains" the form: tree, he never sees a tree to obtain it, because multiple things are "trees" though they all look different. The form "tree" is not only unattainable, but it is not conceptualized in a distinct manner. When one thinks of "tree" they mark in their head the sort of things a tree need be - one with branches, leaves, a trunk.. but nothing so specific like a perfect "circle." It isn't hard to determine from this that some forms are not perfect and some forms are. It could be that tree is the making of God, that he has imbued it in its entirety into many different things, and that our understanding of it is fully incorporated by decoding his messages. But trees are not a perfect form - one's depiction of a tree simply characterizes the many traits, at least some of them, that all trees they know of happen to share. The form "tree" is messaged by God such that we may respond in kind with out desired actions and have He make sense of them. In other words, so that we do not babble nonsense in the face of trees.

There is great importance to the matter that trees are not perfect forms. Some forms are determined by creation and some are determined by non-creation-- absolutes. An absolute is a thing in itself, that is never conceptual, never perceivable and fully real - as real to one person as it is to another. Languages are absolutes, as are people (minds), God, and forms (of no creation). Because "circle" is an absolute form, it derives its strength from being fully real. It is useful as a tool in mathematics and provides a basis by which many strive to nearly replicate. The same is true for other geometrical figures. But "tree" refers to many things, any one of which man can obtain fully and duplicate to his satisfaction. Some forms, then, are the relative truths of a language which establishes those forms as being dependent on the speaker and listener. No two people mean the same thing when they speak of "tree" - but each fully understands his own meaning, while both people mean precisely the same thing when they speak of "circle", but neither understands it precisely.

Other forms of no creation include adjectives of some sorts. Many things, like the color "blue" are not perfect forms, because they are each established under a range of many colors, but each of those colors is fully explicable and creditable. The same goes for "slow", "sleepy", "strange"… any form to which many things apply is a form of creation, while any form that many things attempt to apply to is a perfect form-- an absolute of no creation. Perfect form adjectives include rolling, spinning, weaving, ducking… these are human activities, but each can be applied to mechanical devices. How, then, are these perfect forms? I will tell you: they mark in their significance a piece by which non can attain: the drama of the act. When one "spins", he does so with an explicit purpose, and the same for "roll" or "weave" or "duck" -- there is a point at which his activity ends are unattainable, and so likewise with these forms-- the means.

If a machine were to do it, it's kidding itself.

Ends or these means are neither attainable nor deducible - they are dramatized in a play or movie but never exactly displayed in real life. Who "spins" without a purpose? None. So who is spinning except that by which some purpose was already demonstrated? These adjectives denote the existence of something prior to their occurrence, and because that prior thing is never explicable in terms of the adjective itself, the adjective remains perfect. One can elucidate a meaning from this - but it isn't quite up to par. Something along the lines of: none is suited to write the script; but more accurately, since even God isn't watching, "none is most suited to tell the mistakes." People slip up in the theater at a level which none can predict to occur - likewise, in reverse, people make actions in real life to which none can credit a slip-up; and if it were, none would know the difference. The act plays into the language of at least one absolute, and so it is an absolute itself; the adjective makes no statement, despite having one, and so cannot be replicated.

Thus, "spinning" is an different type of perfect form from "circle" or "square." It is one that all people place onto many different scenarios, but on which each scenario attains a perfect form - necessarily each one different from the next and last. But this is because of not the fallibility of the form's perfection, but the inadequacy of language. God does not create the form "spinning" - it is one that we attribute ourselves. It is not an action we can displace to God in and of itself, because we must have a reason - even if this reason is to spin for spinning's sake. That this reason - the act's end - cannot be elucidated by oneself or others is what denotes the perfection. That each is attuned to an absolute is what inspires the absolute in itself. No two "spinning"s are exactly alike.

Allow me to explain in different terms: suppose one were to spin in order to avoid one from capturing a flag around his waist. This spin would be purposed in a certain fashion - but that fashion becomes a part of the act, as it is its end. Thus the adjective "spinning" embodies the action's end. When each becomes attuned to that desire, what they find is an inexplicability, for the action requires a language that is an absolute itself. Thus, the adjective form is an absolute; by embodying something that cannot be described, but is a part of it.

Leaves play a role as a created form - but what of a leafed man? Still a creative form. We see that adjectives are absolutes only insofar as they are connected to a purposed action, which demonstrates the will's freeness in its being an absolute.

What can be deduced from all this? For starters, anything deduced is not itself a form. Forms are things that are, each being a real existence, but the most real being attributed to absolute forms including souls, minds, God, forms of perfection and no creation, &c. There are also created forms, products of an absolute language, which can be fully obtained (though not fully attained) as they must have at once been so. Forms which attribute an end by purposed action into their existence are necessarily absolutes, even as language is insufficient to differentiate them from other absolutes; though they are differentiated, simply not in the language used (but in the language unused.). These remarks qualify one's understanding of a God as he is related to man - the message sender whose needs be decoded by man, such that we ride faster on the highway of forms; to obtain our purpose of drawing near to absolutes. This summarizes life's purpose: to follow God as the means to this end.