Will within world

The desire for engagement with the world manifests personal being, and the lack of desire, or aversion towards the world, collapses being.

One can desire for an end, or the lack of desire for the end. In this we see that we have two choices, either to manifest the end or not to manifest the end.

The desire for, may have desire linked to it. Desire for, is its own set, where as desire for desire for, is another set.

Fundamental survivalistic desires, are innate, in that they prime the will with desire for things in the world, for engagement with the world, as to fulfill their ends, which is survival of the organism. These FSD, might also be called rational or self-interested desires. The ends or means that lead to desires, which are not fundamental are mutated forms of attaining being-in-its-end.

These desires for particular engagement exist as in accord with the supplies within the economy to instigate more primary desires. Cars, fulfill the primary desire of mobility, but this end is not fundamental in that it isn't required for mobility; rather the structure of the body, that makes mobility possible, is the direct metaphysical or structural nature of desire made manifest. Legs are for the desire to be mobile, as the desire to be mobile is to have legs, as a fundamental relation between desire and engagement. With cars, being a world mutation (rather than a body mutation), we might also see production or economic machines in consequence of a secondary desire or fulfillment. Examples: A snow plow for clearing the roads of snow, so people can drive.

The fundamental desires, are in accord with the nature of the structure of the organism. The impulses which determine the movement of the organism, and its engagement with the world, are visible at a physiological level, and are the contribution of bodily chemical reactions. Not only do the fundamental desires instigate movement of the body, but they are for the material ends which exist in the world, that satisfy them, that is trigger the desire, and than attenuate it with its existence in a present, in some cases.

Secondary desires and secondary ends, are mutated forms of primary desires and primary fulfillment. When we think of the human form, and its desires, we can imagine the confines of the being and its reactions with the world. Many of the reactions which take place for the human organism, correspond with the ontology, of emotion (from comfort to disdain), pain/pleasure, and logic, as some examples. The freedom of the individual organism, depends on its reactions with the world,; the desires it has and the satisfiers that exist to allow for the impulse to be satisfied.

These, might be considered to be a part of the biological mechanisms of the organism. Every living thing might be considered to have organized chemical reactions, for engagement with the world, which either support or degenerate their existence.

The confinements of human will, that is as a product of a biological mechanism, is either to fulfill survivalist impulses, to fulfill secondary desires, or to exist in a state of emotionality. When desires of the organism are fulfilled, it will either benefit, detriment, change the emotionality of the human organism, or increase memory or consciousness. To categorize and write on some, there is rationality, emotionality, behavior, knowledge, judgment, within which human beings make their decisions, through physical movements of their body, engaged with the world, its objects, and its beings.

The existence of a choice is a battle between the intensity of the dualistic impulses of aversion and attraction. If we create dichotomy of the choices we can make we can form a gradient system, wherein we can measure the probability or value of the impulses.

Rationality - Is defined as a proporition between harm and care, or pleasure and pain. If pleasure is subjective, than so is rationality, but we do know that some pain, and pleasure, can either be agreed upon, or it can be a consistently identified value. With a gradient, we would see behaviors that fell into the most harm, as in extinction of all life on earth, to the most possible highest "good" being the care or well-being of the most amount of beings, with a minimal amount of caused harm.

Emotionality - Can be defined within the confines of categorized emotions. Emotional choices, rather than rational choices, do not consider or are not determined by the rational value of their ends, alone, rather they determined by the feelings invested into the desires or the ends of those desires. Sometimes, these attachments have unconsciousness processes which create attachment, and other times the emotionality of a world relation, can be brought into consciousness. These two therefore, can be thought of in a spectrum, in how conscious one is of their emotionality behind their decisions. When a person describes their choice, as brought on by emotion, they will use words like "because of I want to be happy" or "because I think this will make me happy" or, something of the sort of "my mother was happy in the life, and so I will be as well, therefore, I will make this choice." In any registration of the emotionality, which may conceded with rationality, there is some awareness of what feelings are being used as impulses, in their intensity for the existence of the end of the choice.

Consciousness and the acquirement of skill - A person can venture into a field or topic that exists with its own ontology, and they might be able to perform the processes necessary to become well-informed or able to engage with that environment in way that might be judged as excellent, in contrast/comparison to others which bring about other forms of judgment.

Behavior and Judgment - In almost anything that is done, there is the possibility of two ends existing, creating a spectrum of better or worse. With every performance there is an end which has an accuracy. Every aim has a target, every target has a point of highest accuracy. This can be observed: in teaching children to pour their own liquid, in teaching children to be economical and motivated, in teaching children to answer the correct or accurate answers to applied formulas, in the assessment of a employee under a boss, who defines the ends of "good" and "bad" work performance, even in the existence of playing the correct notes in the corrects sequence on a piano.

The existence of "normal" and "healthy" are highly turned into judging the self, as I have observed, normally. The world can be divided up into the sick and the well, the functional and dysfunctional, or any contrasting system of being. Our observations or knowledge of such dichotomies, are pertinent in our identification with the ontology of a thing, and our judgments of its existence.

Had a mind singularly observed people walking on all fours, having seen the same feet be used in upright walking, would be considered abnormal, whereas the person who walks on all fours, and has singularly seen this performance, will judge those whom do walk on all fours, as abnormal. Therefore, our ideas of normality, are, in one sense, our observations of the frequency and regularity of human behavior, and the structural functions of human beings. This idea plays a role in our ideas of culture, economy, religion, and tradition.

These factors, can exist in particular by themselves, or they may be interconnected. The point of this entire expose, is to get at the question of freedom, and whether it exists or are we determined by a chain of cause and effect. We see that the effects of our actions can be chosen, and that there particular effects of particular desires. For example, the desire for happiness, is not the desire for some other kind of mental state, or the desire for food, is not the desire to die (these are particulars, wherein variables might be added as to produce differing effects from the same causes). So, we know that self is determined by desire, which is cause, and consequence which is effect, and these desires and effects work within the confines of the natural world, as any naturalistic would conclude. By this, we know that our internal reactions with external reactions define our reality, and give us the aptitude to be as we react. The desire for food is a reaction (rationality), the desire for a BMW is a reaction (excess self-interest/excessive rationality), the desire to be happy with someone is a reaction (emotionality), the liking of someone's work is a reaction (judgment), the acquisition of information concerning the existence of any thing is a reaction (consciousness), the acquisition of skill by repetition and ends marked accurate are reactions (behavior.judgment). Within the spectrum and ontology of these consequences, there is more or less, and aversion and attraction to any of the values, is potential.

I think there are:
1. Common human desires - as in any desires that fulfill homeostasis, and can be observed to fulfill survival for a wide population,

2. Personally defined desires - as in the desire for a "higher" value product, than the essential (rationality), or as in the desire to be dead rather than alive, or even the desire for blue rather than gray (judgment). PDI's may be in the interest of the organism continued existence, or may not be, where as common interests, are most frequently favorable. Our emotionality with unfavorable or harmful common desires, is usually aversive, as is the emotional association (atrocity) to societies and their politicians that generated racial partiality to survival.

Emotion as Judgment

Can emotion be correct?

We can use a formula:
1. X will make me happy.
2. X made me happy
3. Therefore the emotional judgment of x, is true.

Consequentially, as a predication, emotional predications can be true.

However, there is the possibility of person "a" feeling conversely about something.

We can use a formula for this understanding:
1. X will either make "a" or "b" happy or sad,
2. X makes "a" happy,
3. X makes "b" sad,

What then of emotional judgment?

Emotional judgment can exist or not exist, making either it subjectively "true" (actual), however if we look at the above example we see that with differing emotional judgment there is no "objective" or "universality" to SOME emotional judgments.

 This doesn't seem to explain much, other than A) Emotional judgment (stimuli>feeling) can either have some objectivity (widely agreed upon) or B) be subjective (unique for the individual).

 We can find out how objective an emotional judgment is, based on the existence of experimentation or survey. As in : (A) If your Mother hits routinely you will you be happy, angry, or sad about that? I would think this is a human objectivity, if people agreed to one or a set of emotional reaction.

We can think of subjective emotional judgment as in the circumstance : (B) X occurs, person a reacts with y, person B doesn't react. Particularly, as in the case of finding out your father has died, were you may feel intense sadness, but a stranger who finds this out will not react with that same emotional reaction.

EDIT:

Instead of thinking of emotional reactions as objective, it would be more precise to think of them as being normal/abnormal.