Top 20 Films Since Being Marrried

On the 12th June Helen and I celebrated our third Wedding Anniversary. Just after being married I began a rating regime- soon after watching a film (this then was later extended to TV series, restaurants, beer and cider) we would review it out of ten in our Film Ratings book. Then, with film only, we would rank the films in order with the score out of ten marking the boundaries in which they can be placed; after a film has been ranked it cannot be moved unless it is seen again or pushed up/down by a different film. This system has its limitations though: looking at the whole list there are films I would now move however it was designed with this type of inflexibility in mind. The spark for this idea came a few months after we watched Darren Aronofsky's Pi. At the time Helen seemed to really enjoy it but a few months later she remembered disliking it. Hence the rating and ranking scale was born.

So here comes the Top 20 with original short reviews attached (they typically become more insightful the more recently we watched them), plus our own version of the BBFC's certification scale but this was very much a recent addition so won't accompany many of the films.

NB - Very mild plot spoiler warning

No. 20

• Helen- The Dark Knight (Cert. 15) 7/10:  Intense and terrifying. The Joker is scary and unpredictable. I felt the film however was too long and could have done with some editing , plus there were a few minor plot holes. Some of the action sequences looked good and Batman had some cool gadgets.

• Swith - Pan's Labyrinth 8/10: Too predictable but well shot and acted with some interesting neo-Gnostic concepts.

No. 19

• Helen - Black Swan 7/10: Excellent leading lady, gory and scary in places. 
• Swith - Kind Hearts and Coronets 8/10: Slow start but picked up, good ending, funny.

No. 18

• Helen - Lawrence of Arabia 7/10: Slow but engrossing
• Swith - Batman Begins (Cert. 12) 8/10:  An exciting story with a strong theme although the latter is heavy handed in places. Batman's character is well drawn with extremely likeable characters played by Freeman and Caine. Surprisingly amusing throughout. Could have been trimmed somewhat.

No. 17

• Helen - Notes on a Scandal 8/10: Interesting and built up well. Judi Dench acted well.
• Swith - The Tree of Life 8/10: Interesting and visually stunning non-linear story about evolution, death and faith. Clearly way too long in parts though the family scenes and child acting were excellent. The music was great too. A shame the earnest voice-overs and somewhat pat-pantheism spoil the film.

No. 16

• Helen - The Wicker Man 8/10: Great mystery revealed step by step.
• Swith - Gran Torino (Cert. 15) 8/10: A very funny but sober tale of immigration, modern manhood and growing up. Possibly a little slow in places and some of the characters a little cliched but ultimately very rewarding. Eastwood's grumpy old man is very charismatic. 

No. 15

• Helen - The Way Back  (Cert. 12) 8/10: An interesting film about journeying across countries. Great variety of back drops. Some good characters and funny in places.
• Swith - Up (Cert. U) 8/10: A surprisingly profound tale of family and adventure. Excellent beginning but loses momentum in parts. Clever design but the music is just above average. 

No. 14

• Helen - Aladdin 8/10: Entertaining, nice story and good music.
• Swith - Rashomon 8/10: Great exposition of human nature and the nature of truth especially in the judicial context.

No. 13

• Helen - Les Miserables (Cert. 12) 8/10: Excellent music. Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway were excellent at acting whilst singing their parts. It was however a little one dimensional and could've been more cinematic. Brought back good memories of singing in a choir at school.
• Swith - There Will Be Blood (Cert. 15) 8/10: Excellent dialogue free opening. An enigmatic contrast of a charismatic preacher and primarily an oil tycoon who will do anything to get to the top. Beautifully shot and had well crafted sequences. Also all the violence was painful. Music was intense but somewhat one note which could also be levelled at the theme. Narratively, loses its way in the third act.

No. 12 

• Helen - Jane Eyre (1943) 8/10: Very good story and pace. Liked the characters. A tad predictable.
• Swith - In Bruges 8/10: Funny black comedy with very believable characters and redemptive themes (also rather gory in places)

No. 11

• Helen - Mulholland Drive 8/10: Bizarre, but very interesting - takes a while to figure out (watch again)
• Swith - The Island 8/10: The bleak landscape is beautifully shot but is given warmth by the fire and humour. Richly textured, disturbing in parts but ultimately redemptive.

No. 10

• Helen - Pan's Labyrinth 8/10: Full of suspense, fairy tale.
• Swith - Mulholland Drive 8/10: Oblique deconstruction of the nature of acting, narcissism and Hollywood. Great visuals and scene composition.

No. 9

• Helen - Dogville (Cert. 15) 8/10: Unpredictable. Seemed a little dull at first, but then became engrossing. The ending was also surprising and interesting.
• Swith - Moon 8/10: Sam Rockwell gives a great performance and this is an intriguing film. Interesting take on what it is to be human.

No. 8

• Helen - Magnolia 8/10: Great film, imaginative, interesting and moves quickly. Positive outlook on confession and forgiveness.
• Swith - Wild Strawberries 8/10: Multi-layered portrayal of a man's life, great dream sequences, standard Bergman existentialism. 

No. 7

• Helen - Moon 8/10: Sam Rockwell gives a great performance and this is an intriguing film.
• Swith - Solaris 8/10:  Unnerving in parts and unpredictable. An interesting study of guilt and repentance. Great sci-fi and intriguing ending. Too slow in parts but good visuals. 

No. 6

• Helen - Kind Hearts and Coronets 8/10: Funny and entertaining, good ending.
• Swith - Magnolia 9/10: Operatic, cinematic take on truth and deceit.

No. 5

• Helen - Up 8/10: Cute adventure story that is tear-inducing in places. Funny, but some of the humour is lost on a second viewing.
• Swith - Barry Lyndon 9/10: Great visuals, music and stately but unpredictable and interesting. Stylishly directed but maybe slightly coldly.

No.4

• Helen - Batman Begins (Cert. 12) 8/10: Interesting and exciting. Nice to see how Batman develops as a character. Plot though is over dramatic and unrealistic at times. Batman, Lucien Fox and Alfred are likeable.
• Swith - Lawrence of Arabia (Cert. PG) 9/10: Before the intermission it is incredible: beautiful images of the desert, a sweeping journey of one man searching for meaning with a glorious soundtrack; it was also surprisingly amusing throughout. Excellently drawn supporting cast flanking the mesmerising O'Toole. After the intermission though Lawrence's fall is too quick and loses narrative cohesion.

No.3

• Helen - Inception 8/10: Excellent action and intensity; as good as last time - worth the rewatch.
• Swith - Toy Story 3 9/10: A great finish to a great trilogy. Not as efficient as the original and has an irritating plot contrivance: Mrs Potato Head's eye. Nice anti-communist film too plus a film about moving on.

No. 2

• Helen - Toy Story 3 9/10: Didn't like it quite as much as last time, however, still an excellent story, funny in places with interesting characters. Great music once again.
• Swith - Toy Story 9/10: Snappy plot and dialogue. Great characters and music. Very funny but also has great depth: realising that you were made for someone and that is where you find your true happiness. Lacks only visual flair.

No. 1

• Helen - Toy Story 10/10: Snappy plot and dialogue. Great characters and music.
• Swith - The Trial (Cert. PG) 10/10: Absolutely brilliant. Excellently shot, acted, edited and scored. A great exposé of the corruption of government and the place of sex in a meaningless universe.

Stay alert in the next few days for our worst 20 films.

Libertarianism, Christianity and Gay Marriage

The whole gay marriage push is historically interesting since 30 years ago most of the homosexual movement were and probably still are, bohemians who rather than get married would rather liberate heterosexuals from the bourgeois constraints of marriage. For an excellent discussion of this, listen to this podcast.

Given a libertarian society, i.e. no taxation, there would be no immediate financial for being married, although in the UK these days it actually pays to be unmarried in some cases due to the welfare system. So why would anyone get married? On the finance front the most obvious reason is children- if one party abandons the other then without a marriage contract the abandoned would be burdened with the costs of raising the children; it also helps in determining inheritance of property. Now for obvious biological reasons consistent homosexuals cannot reproduce. The homosexual libertarian Justin Raimondo makes a case against gay marriage mainly in regards the lack of children here.

Another reason would be love as such they want to objectify their life long love and relationship, which would include some homosexuals. The problem with this as it presently legally stands, at least in the UK, is that marriage is no longer for life. At a marriage ceremony there is no declaration of lifelong commitment, nor a vow of faithfulness.

However one of the major reasons for marriage, in the West, is the legacy, or belief, of the Christian doctrine that marriage is ordained by God between a man and women. It holds that men and women are equal in dignity, but different and complementary and that the proper place for sexual activity is in a life long marriage. Now since sex implies children this is all wrapped up together with God's command to Adam and Eve to multiply and subdue the Earth. Lest anyone argue that the Bible is anti-sex this quote from Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 will be of interest:

³ The husband must ^[a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. ⁴ The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. ⁵  Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a

time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and ^[b]come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

The underlying problem of the whole gay marriage movement is its egalitarianism - men and women are essentially interchangeable. There's no need for fathers and mothers, or husbands and wives but of loving carers and life partners. This attitude reminds me of the male member of the People's Front Judea (I think) in The Life of Brian who wanted to bear children. Other members argued for his right to bear children when John Cleese's character responds something like he needs to sort his problems with reality. In a way it is directly related to the tabula rasa, nature vs nurture threads that have appeared recently: mankind is not infinitely malleable, he has a nature. It is obvious for anyone that men and women are different and that biological differences are an obvious pointer to that. In a way egalitarianism rejects the comparative advantages of the sexes and as such is destructive to civilisation. The present lack of specialsation of roles especially relating to children is due to the welfare system which encourages mothers to work outside the home; note also though the schooling system is one massive and expensive babysitting service.

Now given the reason of children and the innate differences between men and women the incidence of gay marriage, in a libertarian society would be rather low and as such the big push for it seems somewhat odd. There may be some genuine support for it but it seems as though it is a symbol of a liberal's purity at present. Further though it is being co-opted by the ruling class as a further means of egalitarian leveling which will make we the ruled easier to exploit when our natural allegiances have been weakened.

Now clearly gay marriage should not be illegal but it should not be promoted. Libertarians and conservatives should, rather than oppose the gay marriage, support and advocate parallel marriage contracts. In particular allowing Churches the power to make those, men and women, who marry in their buildings sign a weightier, more traditional contract which can be enforced in the courts. This essentially means divorce is harder and the obligations placed on both parties is higher- it would again be a serious commitment rather than the fleeting one it is increasingly becoming; this would require Christians to again look at what are legitimate grounds for divorce and remarriage which many thought we could forget after the controversies of the 80s and 90s.  If this is seen to be successful, which I expect it would given man's nature, then it would then displace the statist marriage we have at present. and result in a more stable and prosperous society.

The Creation Museum in Kentucky

On my recent road trip around the USA I visited the Creation Musuem and here are my thoughts.

Firstly it is technically impressive. The animatronic exhibits are excellent and the feel of the entire place is one of quality; they’ve clearly spent a lot of money on the place. They also have many audio visual exhibits which cuts down on the amount of reading required; I really dislike museums that have walls and walls of text to read. The videos they play are normally rather short so you are constantly moving rather than stuck watching a video for half an hour. As an aside the more explicitly sciencey short videos were the most interesting item there. They also had some lovely gardens and a zoo but we didn’t see much of them due to time constraints.

The aim, as I understood it, was to show that everyone looks at the world with a particular lense which is non-neutral- the examples used were atheism and Christian theism- but with a greater emphasis on the Biblical narrative making sense of the universe particularly 6 Day Creation, Fall, the Flood, Babel and finally Christ. Consequently the amount of science content was proportional low; most of it was focused around geology which was quite informative.

It did not though succeed even on its own terms: the worldview analysis was rather shallow and misleading at times- it was hardly assumption quaking; the Biblical narrative exposition was good although it felt as it was focused towards Christians rather convincing others of it i.e. far too little of actual creation evolution debate (and anthropology). It took me a while to figure out the purpose of the museum.

If you are a Creationist or an Evolutionist of any stripe it doesn’t provide enough science to get your teeth into. If you are a non-Christian it won’t convince you of the Biblical narrative since it doesn’t adequately engage with non-Christian narratives.

All in all, a missed opportunity and an expensive one at that- not cheap especially if you took a family (it’s deliberately kid friendly but there are clearly adult exhibits). So if you are a Creationist or an Evolutionist I’d say go to some botanic gardens and read some books on the subjects.

Libertarianism and the Arts

The arts are one area in which I think libertarians need to engage in more. Firstly we need to appreciate there importance, especially narrative art (stories in any form) which I will be focusing on.

When we look at book sales it is clear that fiction far out sells non-fiction, but why? My contention is that stories are far more akin to real life human experience than non-fiction: they have a real sequential element. All humans exist and act in time and thus a story being a condensed version of human life is far more appealing than non-fiction which in essence is timeless: empirical science, economics, philosophy et al; history would be an exception but a lot of that is done rather impersonally and you really need a pre-existing interest in the period itself to read it. One of the great strengths of narrative is that you can create emotions and realistic characters which you can’t do timelessly. Herein lies the appeal and the power of narrative.

With stories you can create ideals to aspire for and systems to denigrate. This can be powerfully demonstrated by human cost or achievement to a character you already have an emotionally investment. We therefore need a libertarian saga, or meta-narrative, which libertarian novelists and filmmakers can feed from. A saga which shows the world before the state to the descent to it and finally its obliteration, whilst demonstrating the dignity of the individual person and the virtue of liberty. So essentially we need our own version of the Marxist theory of history. Now one of the main obstacles to this raises its ugly head which is due to libertarianism being such a broad church (here a libertarian is defined as one who adheres to the NAP): we all agree on the pre and post statist world but disagree on how the state came into being and how it will collapse. For example I see the state as the ultimate rejection of God since becoming a state is the closest thing to God you can get. Thus it fits in well with my Christian meta-narrative of creation, fall and redemption. Others would see it as the outworking of an authority based life view and that a non-statist world would be rather egalitarian. I do not intend to discuss the validity of these competing views here but to illustrate their existence.

Consequently more work needs to be done on the origin and rise of the state. Even though some sides are unlikely to come to agreement this it will help to articulate more precisely different libertarians sagas. From this framework the evils of statism can be exposed and the virtue of freedom lauded. However it needs to be understood however that stories do not convince people of certain ideologies: they merely sensitise people towards them. To use stories as propaganda is hokey and makes for bad stories. At present statist films sensitise people to the idea that business is sleazy and evil so they want to here logical arguments as to why it is and the state is better (having said that a lot of films essentially are propaganda but we shouldn’t stoop that low). This is why we always get the question: what should the government do? One of the main tasks for the libertarian story teller is to sensitise people to the goodness of liberty. Today most people want a cushy life without responsibility. We need to change that.

So the task for the libertarian story teller is to create stories with real characters, we should not do the opposite of the socialists and make every government official a bogeyman, and compelling plots within a libertarian meta-narrative.

As an addendum can any body recommend any decent libertarian films or literature? I obviously know of Rand but I get the impression her work tends towards propaganda. I’ve read the first of the Sword of Truth series, the Wizard’s First Rule, by the Objectivist Terry Goodkind which was actually very good but I hear the rest of the books get worse. As for my own recommendations I can go no further than recommend the TV series the Prisoner starring Patrick McGoohan. I’m not sure the show is a show case for libertarianism as Chris Tame argued but for a show championing the individual it’s brilliant.

Why isn't the Truth More Mainstream

Following the Why isn't Austrian School of Economics more mainstream? thread it got me thinking why are the most widely held doctrines fly in the face of reality: from economics, to climate change and as far as literary theory the accepted "truth" is as far from itself as east is from west.

The question is why? All of you who have read Hayek may blame the intellectuals which of course are a major factor though isn't fundamental. I believe the two major factors are the formal education system and societal nihilism.

The current formal education system has no compass. Nobody knows what its purpose is. Is it to cultivate virtue? Is it to aid the examined life? We have the deafening sound of silence (I'm going through a Simon and Garfunkel phase). To hear this, just listen to political debates and inane public contributions. All it boils down to is we can do it better than the other party and the public saying the old days never aged. What one means by better is never discussed. Now you may argue that may be what the comprehensive (public for you over the pond) schools are like but in the hallowed cloisters of the university truth seeking is the sole quest. In fact universities are some of the most debauched institutions around. Both in my economics degree and my brother's Theoretical Physics masters the sole aim was to churn you through the mill to receive a piece of paper. And this was at a true red brick university. But why? The unuttered, though sometimes occasionally, ad hoc justification is the Marxian idea that education is to develop men for industry: otherwise known as to get a job.

The state funding of the educational institutions fosters this mentality. The incentive for the schools is to get as many children through their books as possible to learn and regurgitate the state's curriculum since that's what they call the piper’s successful "knowledge economy" tune; in fact it’s one of the few tune’s he can call with such a centralised system and an incredibly qualitative area. Attempting cultivation of the person for the examined life is neither possible nor desirable as it would lead to the State’s delegitimisation; similar problems exist with the universities. Further the free at the point of incarceration nature of schools, parents are encouraged to abandon their natural nurture and care of their children and leave it to the professionals. With children abandoned to the state their minds are rendered indolent; the exception being the children of the ruling class who enrol in elite private academies.

In the more academic environment it encourages scientism of the highest order since nothing else will get that grant money. The state can only be a pragmatic institution otherwise it would have died a death long ago. The success in the 19th/20th advances in the empirical sciences all disciplines attempted to ape this by making their studies "scientific" one because it was fashionable but also since it produces “results” which is the only thing the state deals in. This led to emasculation of the social sciences and the arts. Why fund some one to read when you can do on experiment which produces numbers?! It also harmed the hard sciences as well: not once was the nature or appropriate method discussed in the Theoretical Physics masters. All they were concerned with was throwing maths at everything so they could test it irrespective of whether the maths actually makes any sense in reality.

This is not to say that in a purely private formal educational system that pragmatism would be the name of the game however I think it would be tempered. With the hard sciences research would either be directed towards developing useful technologies which could involve arbitrary reasoning or could follow the Baconian idea that technological advancement comes as an offshoot of pure science. The current statist system and the prevailing scientism conflate the two resulting in today’s system.

The more fundamental reason though is the prevailing societal view is nihilistic. There is no truth, no laws and no God. We came from nothing and are going to nothing (I’m not saying no God implies nihilism but you can see why most nihilists are atheists since if there’s an overarching designer it would mean presence rather than absence) A slightly more nuanced view is that truth could exist but it is unknowable however it makes little practical difference. Consequently society as a whole is underpinned by the intensity over profundity principle (Don’t think I’m so profound as to come up with that- I stole it from this clever chap’s lecture- The Self at the End of the 20th Century Part 3 ) Since there is no telos to discover the only way to feel truly alive is through intense physical experience. Now since the same level of thrill has diminishing returns the incentive is to turn things up to 11.

This can be seen in many elements in modern society. The increase in drug use and self harming are most immediate examples of this phenomenon. A less direct effect but nonetheless evident is the representation of acts of violence and sex in the arts; they are realised to create an intense experience rather than left to the imagination. The area with which I’m most familiar in this regard is film. Take the film The Shawshank Redemption and compare the level of graphic violence with say No Country for Old Men: both were rated 15 in the UK (second only to an 18) yet the latter is light years ahead in the violence stakes. If No Country had have been made when Shawshank had been, 15 years or so ago, it certainly would have received 18 certificate. No Country may be actually making point with the violence and may not be entirely artless but it shows the intensity progression. Maybe the best (sic) example of brainless violence are the so called “torture porn” genre exemplified by the Saw (the 1st could be an exception) and Hostel franchise which are just sadistic because they can- the violence is the entertainment.

Interestingly one of the most nihilistic blockbusters of modern times, the Dark Knight actually eschewed realisation in favour of imagination and was far more affecting for it, although the main reason was probably so they could do the deal with Burger King. For an in depth review of the Dark Knight see here but the main points are man is depraved and “Chance is the only reality in this cruel world. Unprejudiced. Unbiased. Fair.” Two Face.

The increase in graphic nudity and sex for pure titillation value is also pervasive in films. For no logical reason scenes are shot in pole dancing clubs or female “characters” will walk across their bedroom topless. In the Lars von Trier film Antichrist the actors actually have sex on screen to further the realisation process. Further most of life is becoming fetishised, even food- the Marks and Spencer food adverts are more erotic than Channel 5’s straight to video sleazefests. This is unsurprising when sex is viewed purely in materialistic terms and is no different than slugs copulating; since there is only the hormonal kick, why not get it anywhere, anytime?

Now I’m not decrying the use of nudity/sex and violence on screen but just how and why it is used. The sex scene in Nicholas Roag’s Don’t Look Now is graphic but is an incredibly intimate and tasteful scene. Further Shakespeare and the Bible have quite a bit of it in too. Obviously there has always been a tendency to put the intense before the profound: Aristotle said that man is most often closer to the beasts than the spirit. And yes we don’t have Gladiators yet. The point stands however we are certainly heading further into the pit of intensity and the prevailing worldview encourages it.

In conclusion the formal education system isn’t set up to search for the truth but merely in producing compliant AI (Artificial Ignorance); and society thinks only sexy needles “exist”.

Toy Story 3: An Anti-Communist Film (warning spoilers)

(Penned a while ago)

After being stuck in horrendous traffic last night we missed Inception, although will catch it next week, so my wife and I watched Toy Story 3 in 2D (because 3D is overated and more expensive). It is a really great film and possibly even better than the first although I haven't seen it for a while. Funny, poignant and exciting: this is far more than a kid's film.

The premise is that Andy ages to become 17 and will leave for college on Friday, and the question arises what will he do with his old toys- we learn that a lot of his toys have been sold or donated. He decides to take Woody with him to college and to put the rest in the attic. His mum mistakes them for the rubbish and puts them outside. Thinking they were to be thrown away they jump into Andy's mum's car to be donated to Sunnyside day care centre along with some of Molly's toys. And then the story really begins.

At Sunnyside we learn that after an initial glorious preview that it is run by a tyrannical bear called Lotso who assigns the room with the older, gentler children, to those who have proved their loyalty to him and puts the rest of the toys with the toddlers who abuse the toys. Of particular note he attempts to break up Andy's family of toys to re-allign their allegience to him. Further he utters the line, no owners means no heart break. His paradise is seemingly a psudeo communist one at day care where the children come and go but the toys remains forever, albeit under his control.

This is contrasted with a new family of toys owned by a girl from the day centre (I can't remember her name) who have a wonderful life in her bedroom where they are loved and cared for by her owner. To reinforce this point at the end Andy decides, with a little help from Woody, to donate them not to daycare but to the girl.

So it seems clear that one of the main points is that ownership is better than non-ownership; the toddlers display the tragedy of the commons. Further that ownership is related to being a family which is seen as natural rather than the imposed communist regime. Also if you see the child toy owners as God you could view the film in a sort of feudalist film as whenever the toys deviate from God's appointed king Woody's orders they stray from their masters will and are thus not where they will flourish. Now since there are many child owners it's a sort of polytheistic feudalism.

There are a few points that could be made against this reading. The first arises from the original in which Sid could be seen as a devil vs god (Andy) and as such not all child owners are benevolent. Having said that it could just be an attack on the abuse of power. Secondly and more pertinently, Barbie, in the latest film, spouts that power only derives from the consent of the governed. Now it supposed to be an amusing line but it's backed up later when the Aliens from Pizza Planet eventually control the claw at the end and become co-equals; throughout they reverence the claw- "the claw is our master, he decides who will go and who will stay". And finally in the credits we see Sunnyside as a paradise run by Barbie and Ken showing that if you get the right leader daycare can be really great.

However the main thrust of the film is that ownership is superior to none ownership even if neo-fedualist elements are balanced out by democratic arguments.

Why I am not Necessarily Wrong

An argument for free will (or more precisely libertarian free will)

Libertarian free will (as opposed to compatibilism) is defined as the ability to choose A or non-A.

Is libertarian free will (LFW) true?

It is necessarily true since otherwise one couldn't evaluate the truth value of the question "Is LFW true?" because you could only conclude what you were determined to do which gives no foundation for truth

There is one exception which would be if one were epistemologically infallible. This would then give a solid foundation for truth under determinism.

Yet this is obviously false since it is possible for me to argue, and believe to be true, that 2+2=3 which demonstrates that I must have varying degrees of determined fallibility (assuming determinism). And since fallible determinism gives no foundation for truth we must again reject determinism.

Therefore LFW is true.

What does this imply? (Or how can we metaphysically justify the existence of LFW)

We cannot be purely material beings since we would be determined by our neurological pathways or other laws of nature.

If we were then you are either stuck with cast iron laws of nature which results in cast ironly determined "choices", or accept quantum randomness which implies a complete scatter gun type "choice".

And as above this gives no foundation for truth and therefore must be rejected.

This implies then a substance dualism (trichotomy or more) of man since can provide a foundation for real choices as it can be neither random nor subject cast iron laws. At present I can't elaborate on what this non-material substance is apart from the fact it provides the necessary metaphysical foundation for LFW.

Finally it implies that the will is basic and as such causes itself.