“A society in which power is widely distributed is also likely to be the one characterized by the existence of wide possibilities for choice and individual initiative”. – The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Crowell Collier MacMillan, 1967, Freedom and Choice”.

Boy, that old-school textbook sure played to a concept that humans had minds not simply extensions of their bodies, and which in fact existed at all…or COULD choose along non-self preservation lines.

However, assume in our modern age there is a sentiment afoot which says free will is impossible as everything a human can do, say, or imagine is either guile for self-preservation, or a projection of desired leniency for one’s self, or both. In other words, though infinitely trainable, every last human is but a talking monkey incapable of transcending itself…whether upon its own mettle, some deity, or otherwise; thus secular power could seem best exercised treating all humanity as pets, regulating everything from breeding to terminal redundancy to “limited and pretend rights of choice given by government to appease or confuse the beasts”.

This is why some, known for real as “radical behaviorists” and actually having a division within the American Psychiatric Association plus its own journals, exert influence in demanding the concept of “mind” itself be abandoned as a relic of a superstitious pre-scientific past, and say governments should assign all life options to “the herd”.

Armed with little more than the fact THEY have degrees and want you to be as impressed with that as they are with themselves, those who reject the very existence of ANY mind are hardly free of as-degreed or better critics. As mere example, “The Oxford Companion to the Mind” (Oxford Press, 1991, p.385, paragraph six) in part states: “Dispensing with intentional theories is not an attractive option, however, for the abstemious behaviourisms and physiological theories so far proposed have signally failed to exhibit the predictive and explanatory power needed to account for the intelligent activities of human beings” (sic in orginalis).

I could also sum up rebuttals to me of those admiring radical behaviorism this way: “You, sir, have as your greatest grandmother a four million year-old ape-woman, just ask National Geographic, and she has certainly passed no mind to you! Thus, you in your case have to be epigenetically imagining one or more autonomous facts could exist about anything, or that you’re more than just blind S/R! On the other hand, we in control positions opt to fly in the face of opinions of you, your common herd, former law and stuff, in favor of a well-regulated society steered by radical behaviorism”.

This is where such radical behaviorist enthusiasts become their own worst critics: when one has a position of authority or other self-serving interest, and there would be no real challenge to such self-interest if one acted as autonomous facts relevant to them and not self-interest suggested, yet they select what is most epigenetically appealing for themselves instead…guess what, they just admit someone of human birth CAN make choices not essential to the comfort or propagation of ANYTHING radical behaviorists say some four million year-old grandma gave us mindless critters. They’d have their self-interested status either way and choose without coercion or labeling as mentally abnormal.

Here’s to hoping that such mental power will again become widely distributed around the globe, and will widely expand options for personal choice and initiative.