- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Where do you think this lies? This is perhaps one of my favorite topics post FC. This to me is a twist on the “nature vs. nurture” with a side of self determination thrown in. Start with the foundational building blocks of your genetic code and your biology and/or spirit that would make you different from other babies. Then add in your circumstances, your environment, and all the inputs of your formative years that becomes hardwired over time into your worldview and how you respond to events and people around you. Agency (in my understanding of LDS doctrine) is theoretically one’s ability to overcome the limitations of nature and nurture to make choices that align with our true divine selves regardless of our mortal circumstances. I am not sure that it really exists as described here.
As an anology, suppose the combination of nature and nurture presents me with an option of Fruit Loops or Raisin Bran for cereal. I can use my agency to choose one or the other but I am not overcoming my circumstances as much as I am making choices within my circumstances.
I posit that all paths that are available to me are within my combined nature and nurture. I also posit that not all paths are available to all individuals and certainly not available to the same degree.
Where I think that the concept of agency has the most merit is in pushing against our more base insticts and appetites, the dominant current of our lives, and/or the path of least resistance in order to make different and hopefully better life choices.
An interesting question, a young Mormon man grows up in a predominant LDS area. He is approaching missionary age, most of his friends are going on missions, his parents and extended family expect for him to go, and girls he might date or be interested in dating expect him to go. Is it really agency to go on a mission. In this scenario the mission path is the path of least resistance and the dominant current of our lives. Is going with the flow a valid use of agency?
Fascinating topic!
SamBee wrote:
Where do you think this lies?
SamBee can you give us more information?
This is a far reaching topic. I’m not sure where I would begin.
Where do you think it lies?
SamBee wrote:
Where do you think this lies?
It is limited to any area you can control, and limited out of any area you can’t. I think that’s the whole of it.
Minyan Man wrote:
SamBee wrote:
Where do you think this lies?
SamBee can you give us more information?
This is a far reaching topic. I’m not sure where I would begin.
Where do you think it lies?
Ah, you’re doing what my English teacher used to – turning the question round!
There are certain limits which are obvious – unless I develop Indian guru type powers, you won’t see me flying through the air, walking around for hours underwater or burning through metal with my eyes.
I think what I’m getting at is something must less dramatic. Some people clearly have less agency than I do – I can do a number of things a paraplegic can’t. But there are people out there who can do things I can’t – physically, mentally etc as well.
Then you have the whole conundrum of automatic reflex. Holding your hand above a candle is not easy – we used to do this at school. But at some point we all pull our hand away. How much of what we do is automatic? How much of it is genuinely free choice?
dande48 wrote:
SamBee wrote:
Where do you think this lies?
It is limited to any area you can control, and limited out of any area you can’t. I think that’s the whole of it.
This, pretty much, but there seems to be a huge gray area. Many people suffer from phobias, anxiety, tics etc. You can also see folk from the same genetic line enacting the same scenarios. In one case I unwittingly mirrored something my father did at college (long story).
Some people have better looks than others (although there is leeway for personal opinion here), some have accents which have low prestige and are hard to get rid of… Height too seems a determinant of future life.
In LDS theology, we have a whole bundle of karma based on pre-existence.
Good thread. 1 Observation: That the illusion/perception of agency is just as important as the actual limits on our agency. This is part of what makes the teenage years more perilous – teens have an illusion or perception that they can do more than they actually can (in general) (or vice versa).
When I was a teenager, my perception was that I couldn’t get a part-time job because I wouldn’t be qualified. This was a challenge for me for the first job I had as well. About 6 months into my job, it dawned on me that if anything, I always had been overqualified for the positions I did not apply for and that my perception of the situation limited my options considerably.
I have no idea. I try to live like I have full agency, while understanding that I don’t. I also try to live with the idea that, in the end, it doesn’t matter, since the Atonement /grace covers the gap, however large it is.
AmyJ wrote:
…the illusion/perception of agency is just as important as the actual limits on our agency.
Old Timer wrote:
I try to live like I have full agency, while understanding that I don’t.
Personally, I believe free agency is 100% an illusion. I don’t believe it really exists. At the same time, I think it is vitally important to pretend it exists, especially within ourselves. We should take responsibility for our actions, and should hold other people accountable for their actions (though to a much lesser extent). It’s necessary to act as if free agency exists, in order for society to function, even though it isn’t real.
But I also think we should approach even our own past actions with the utmost charity. It’s why we’re told not to judge. When people do bad things, it’s not because they are bad people. It’s often because they were hungry, tired, stressed, or afraid.
I beleive passionately in the kind of charity that sees nearly all people, if not all people, as doing the best they can in any given situation. I believe the purpose of life is eternal progression, in whatever way means the most to each person. Agency and grace can be competing concepts, but they don’t have to be. I try to hold onto both simultaneously.
I’ve had a few conversations with orthodox friends along the lines of what Roy mentions in his post. I don’t think we (orthodox members and people in general) are completely comfortable with the idea that we might not always be able to choose our behaviors.
One thing that comes out of these conversations is that we’re very concerned with fairness. To suggest that there could be one set of rules for one person and a whole other set of rules for another is unsettling, we don’t think it’s fair.
I’ve found it hard to have these conversations with orthodox friends because they do not want to place any limit at all on our agency. I think the feeling is that to do so would erode the standards we’re all supposed to be holding ourselves to. If we aren’t in complete control of our behaviors at all times it chips away at agency. If you chip away at agency it chips away at (our) judgment, then things really start to get interesting. It’s easier to maintain order by telling ourselves that there are no limits to our agency.
nibbler wrote:
It’s easier to maintain order by telling ourselves that there are no limits to our agency.
But things start getting sticky, when dealing with “sin”. If you “choose to yell at your kids”, you’re a bad parent. Best to realize you’re sleep deprived, stressed, and lost your head. Or consider the bishop who approaches a porn addict by saying, “Just don’t do it!”. It’s really not that simple. According to free agency, if you do something bad, you are a bad person, because you chose to do it. There is very little room for forgiveness. But if you consider the countless outside factors effecting your actions, you can truly say “I messed up.” “I did something I wish I hadn’t done.”
Maybe it’s another case of “anything when taken to extremes.” The benefit in belief in 100% agency is that it causes you to reflect on your own behaviors. You may or may not be able to fully control your own behaviors but making the attempt to change your own behaviors is probably going to be more productive than excusing behaviors by playing the blame game.
And the other extreme, beating yourself up for things over which you don’t have near as much control as you believe you have.
nibbler wrote:
The benefit in belief in 100% agency is that it causes you to reflect on your own behaviors.
But couldn’t the opposite be true? For me, setting agency aside helps me to analyze why I do what I do. For example, why do I stay up late, when I know I have work in the morning? Why do I procrastinate? What motivates me to work out vs what causes me to be lazy? 100% agency condenses the answer to “because I chose to.” Setting agency aside, you can really look at the behavioral triggers and factors behind your choices, and adjust accordingly. Figure out “how to control myself”.
The focus on analyzing and adjusting accordingly shows a belief in one’s ability to change in a self-directed manner, which is a component of agency. 
I believe in the general concept of moderation in all things. (How is that for combining a qualifier with an absolute?
😆 ) It is a more difficult standard, but I believe it is where the most understanding and growth exists.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.