Willing and choice are not one, whoever utilized the will, they did not come home from the candy store, their faces ashen and their backs slumped with exhaustion ‘I willed and willed -turning the corner- I found a glorious cul-de-sac, found I had to will some more!
In the statement ‘do as you will, love under will’ any election is secondary -in the act of will- thus this is not the demand for total freedom, but consider the problem of morality.
One may look at certain gross acts, clearly they see these acts are willful and harmful, that becomes the root of any morality -it will never stop at this however- the world is not black and white, if one dies it is not enough to say ‘murder!
These judgements build and build, that refinement cannot be contained -nor should it be- if it were there would be inevitable injustice, for any action that doesn’t fall in clear distinctions -even if the consequence is mere social judgement- the failure of morality is rooting within this structure, it is bound to a chaotic and unstable ground.
The only thing giving apparent root, this is the act of tradition -as a mere repetition- taken as in the commandments, or any other system of primary rules (one may look at these rules, without finding a true integral structure, they simply make-up some basic ideas of living well) that system then expands, the core is not fundamentally whole (as in scientific literature -creating such objectivity!- precision of definition is not enough -one continues to rest on the label- the idol dominates the decision making) knowing a word or action, one instantly assumes the meaning.
General coincidence with structure, such a thing gives presumed validity, but every falsehood rests upon a truth (the eternal extends through the infinite -as Kierkegaard pointed out accurately- one sees a glimmer of the eternal -then they keep on going!- failing to extend through the infinite distorts) thus I use ethic as a differentiation, from the decadence of morality -the root being decay- but Christianity showed its decadence long ago -which is a dynamic statement- anything that does not move beyond the infinite, it is bound to decay, as energy is ever shifting.
Feeding on dual knowledge, one is bound to death, but the eternal is always present -else it wouldn’t be eternal would it?- there is a sickness unto death, but what dies that distorts the vital?
Without any recourse to a root, any idea may be twisted into a morality (as may be seen in the hammer -revealing an amusing failure with women- one of the primary writings -that would be comical if it weren’t genocidal- behind the fervor of witchhunts) it may be seen in the willful lies of raw foodists (destroying the nutrients of foods -stock and jus say otherwise- but what if I cut an orange -the juice running down my hand is lost nutrients- woah for the blade and source of evil!) eating food is an act that diminishes nutrients, without allowing the body full access -further assuming survival as the leveled reality- is this a world of abundance, nutrient counting!
Oh my, we’d best take everything for ourselves, never mind the lies -don’t the ends justify the means?-!
The best one may do, is to say that only a basic morality matters, but this only holds while people listen, do we understand our own emotions however, what is it to will?
To return, I should go to a time capsule, to see if I truly did disgrace myself -in the ignorance of an earlier view- even despite mocking disdain, for a singular victory of depth -but all is fair in love/war and sports?-!