Is Freedom Sustainable?
posted by Anonymous | July 24, 2009
- Login or register to post comments
- Print this page
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
IcerocketBefore I begin, I just want to assure you that I'm not one of "them."
I am not, and have never been, a republican, a religious fundamentalist, or a fascist.
My social and political views make Dennis Kucinich look like Sarah Palin.
But I got a random idea recently: "Freedom" is almost like a god these days, and like any god, it may be appropriate to have its authority questioned.
First of all, freedom can be viewed as something of a pyramid scheme - something that has to keep expanding in order to exist. If we define freedom as the ability to do what you want and seek what you want (as long as it doesn't interfere with others' ability to do the same), the whole purpose of it is to bring about happiness via the satisfaction of desire. If I want the new car, I can go get the new car. If I want to visit the new place, I can go visit the new place.
But pretty soon we get bored. When we were small children, just walking around the backyard was a fascinating journey. When we were a little older, our bikes gave us all the mobility we wanted. A few years later, having a car expanded our horizon to even more new wonders. Maybe today, we have to get on a plane and fly to a new country or continent just to get the same effect.
Eventually it runs up against the constraints of nature. Eventually our freedom gets taken away by the laws of physics. Whenever it does, our mood crashes into discontent.
It sounds a lot like the industrial economy to me. You know, with the whole "gotta keep expanding just to exist" structuring.
And another eerie problem with freedom (as it's currently defined) is the whole notion of "I can do what I want, as long as I don't interfere with anyone else". A supreme court justice once summed it up poetically, stating, "my right to swing my fist ends at the other man's nose."
But is it really possible to perform any action, or even think any thought, without affecting other people?
If we've learned anything in the past couple years, it's that there's no such thing as an isolated phenomenon.
Suppose your neighbor watches lots of gory movies, or likes to talk and think about horrible nasty things, or suppose he's a monk who self-flagellates or something weird like that... You know people's emotions and thoughts send out vibrations, and those vibrations affect anyone who's within range. Should he be allowed to do all those nasty things to himself, even though on a psychic level it affects the whole neighborhood, and maybe even the planet?
Your personal choices are not personal. Ever. They always affect others.
If there is no such thing as an isolated phenomenon, then do people REALLY have an inalienable right to do ANYthing?
It's quite a pickle... lol.
Comments
True Will
— Jul 24, 2009
Yeah, you can't really talk for very long about freedom without touching on ultimate questions. What is freedom? What is it that is free? Which, are too often answered simply with arbitrary declarations... "Whatever I want." "I am free." But, the statement "I want" in itself betrays a dependence on other. And, the question of volition itself is a bit of a sticky wicket... How much of motivation is simply twitch response machination based upon environmental conditioning?
Thelema attempts to capture the essence of the truth of these questions in the diad "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law", and "Love is the law, love under will". Where, in my opinion, 'will' has less to do with 'want' and more to do with identity. An identity that is so alienated from the rest of the universe would be served very differently than an identity that was more integrated with the universe as a whole. The more integrated identity would exercise a much truer (more evolved) version of 'will', and so the theory goes, would be in harmony with those neighbors which are also doing their own true will. Questions of harm in this case would have less to do with a kind of 'evil' such as acquisitiveness, and have more to do with the refinement of one's Art. At least, that is my understanding of the philosophy...
I dig your observations. And, think you are right on about the need for endless expansion being central to the kind of ills being visited upon the planet. It seems to be the nature of life to fill up every available space with its variety of forms. But, with an ego that fails to recognise its place in the ecosystem, this kind of expansion can never result in homeostasis, there will always be waste and lack in a closed system, which need not be the case where every output becomes a useful input.
definition of freedom
— Jul 26, 2009
Well, I appreciate your attempting to define your term. That's a huge stroke of consideration on your part. Now we can actually talk about your idea!
Myself, I don't define (political) freedom as the ability to do what one wants as long as it doesn't interfere with others' ability to do the same. Want or desire is immaterial. Freedom is the social condition arising from the recognition in a culture of the rights of an individual to her person, movements, and the things for which she moves: her life, liberty, and property. These rights are recognized in practice by 1) viewing human beings, including oneself, as creatures capable of and amenable to reason and 2) refraining from initiating physical force against another, ie, touching her person or property without her permission.
I view the current corporatist anti-concept of freedom as a straw man, something Bush & his oligarcho-collectivist predecessors promulgated in order to dispense with the last shred of freedom still available in the US. The demo-collectivist Barack "We will not apologize for our way of life" Obama is now following suit.
It is the erosion of real freedom that is unsustainable. Indigenous people have generally enjoyed profoundly greater freedom than civilized people. ("Civilization" from the Latin, civus, meaning city, whose residents have the legal status of slaves.) Even us lab rats will ultimately rebel against our oppression, imprisonment, and slavery--the opposites of freedom--which cannot last. Freedom is a basic requirement of a full human life.
You may not be a fascist or fundamentalist, but your implied socialism leads to the same place. NAZI: National Socialist Party USSR: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And now the US, the greatest totalitarian empire in history, sinks further into a miasma of socialist-inspired and justified fascist dictatorship.
Freedom? What freedom?
~ ~ ~
the darkness conjecture
http://andrewdurham.com
deep topic!
— Jul 24, 2009
It is interesting the predominant themes so far on the topic of freedom being satisfaction of wants (no doubt that definition comes from being saturated with consumerism), individuation (do what thou wilt I think had more to do with individuation than satisfaction of wants, but I suppose both, ultimately), and forms of leadership and the impact they have on our sense of freedom (just watched Valkyrie - phew! I do see corporatism as being nearly one and the same with fascism. I also just read about the latest Fox debacle with a Fox analyst calling for the execution of the captured soldier because it appears that he may have deserted his post. Does neocon = fascist too? I'm afraid it does appear to, despite all of the yammering about freedom and its importance their former leader liked to do. What a sham that was -paraded out so late in the day as an excuse for what was simply an ego driven mistake. Anyway...as Beckett would say, "Nothing to be done".)
What intrigues me is the definition as the right to individuation and just how free are we on that front or what can be done to expand our freedom there? I agree that we aren't truly free in this regard because we do impact one another in exercising our individuation rights. I've often stumbled across this realization in my own journey. People have their own pet version of reality and to the extent that any given individual interferes with that version of reality by seeking individuation that runs contrary to it they become a psychic enemy of sorts. Certainly we encounter this sort of combat regularly in our narcissistic society. God forbid you don't believe in whatever is being used to support someone's self image as valid! There is a drive to fascism it seems perhaps on a basic collective level in terms of our needs for validation. Anyway... I think the whole topic is a really good one to explore in the realm of our psyches because that is really where the rubber meets the road in terms of any true definition of freedom.
excellent blog "If we define
— Jul 24, 2009
excellent blog
"If we define freedom as the ability to do what you want and seek what you want (as long as it doesn't interfere with others' ability to do the same), the whole purpose of it is to bring about happiness via the satisfaction of desire."
This reminds me of what Slavoj Zizek said about the Lacanian jouissance. Jouissance is usually translated from the French as “enjoyment." He speaks of jouissance as a political factor, wherein the injunction to enjoy is at the heart of Consumer-Capitalism (Capitalism the Super-ego.) In this context "freedom" becomes the freedom to consume, to purchase enjoyment - the "freedom" of a society of expenditure as the freedom to enjoy. But this enjoyment is something more than enjoyment, it is enjoyment through transgression in excess (Lacan).
Freedom is thus revealed as always managed, whether through our own personal game of enjoyment, or by the public relations management of enjoument through the culture-industry of production/consumption. The notion of "the right to do something" is thus revealed as merely the "right" to realize one's manufactured self through capital. This management extends also to the political sphere, where politicians become brands that we choose between. Everything must be free insofar as it can be realized through money, through the marketplace. Because it is always managed, "Freedom" is thus it's opposite, and the notion of "Land of the Free" is thus an Orwellian doublespeak.
"We think we are free because we lack the language to articulate our unfreedom."
the impending social collapse at present
— Jul 24, 2009
Hi Jeff,
I just want to say that I really, really agree with this part of your comments and think that might be just exactly why things are going to hell in a hand basket at present. It shall be INTERESTING!
[I]dividualism . . . that places the individual's responsibilities to the community that one lives in first . . . but it does however require certain things, values etc. that most of America society has moved so far from that it seems to me only a social collapse will remind us all of what it iis we're here for.
individuation: not
— Jul 24, 2009
hi, ugotstahwonder,
Thanks for your reply. Actually, I never mentioned individuation, which is a psychological concept originated by Jung and bears little relationship to the present discussion. (And individuation has no relationship whatsoever to the satanic/Crowlian idea of "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". Jung, a decent German, would positively roll over in his grave.)
Yeah, I agree with you and Mussolini, who said fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism.
Yes, neoconservative is code for US fascism.
The OP was just talking about political freedom, so that's what I commented about. I agree that political freedom is rooted in psychological freedom.
I completely disagree that one's process of individuation can violate the freedom (rights) of others. Perhaps you would give an example of what you mean by that?
~ ~ ~
the darkness conjecture
http://andrewdurham.com
huh, Andrew?
— Jul 24, 2009
Hi Andrew,
I wasn't replying to your post, specifically; rather, I was kind of summarizing what I saw everyone talking about in the context of freedom and then talking about what Dancing Buddha's blog, more specifically, brought up for me as well as playing off the Crowley "Do What Thou Wilt" as mentioned by chodpaba with respect to the notion of freedom as related to the individuation process - my inference admittedly. I'm big on Jung and I doubt my comments would have offended him, but you are free to see it your way.Crowley was twisted, perhaps, but not without his points. Also, try googling "Do what thou wilt" and individuation and you'll see lots of people have made a connection between both of those concepts.
I don't think I said that "one's process of individuation can violate the freedom (rights) of others". I said that one's process of individuation can offend others and make them want to bar that process or impede the offending party's freedom in their quest for individuation. I think that is what Dancing Buddha was getting at in the last paragraph of his piece when he referred to people being unpleasant as others might see it.
I think I was coming at the subject from the other side of his rant, as I see it, and saying, yes, it feels distinctly unfree when on the receiving end of people wanting to kybosh whatever you are into because it doesn't fit into their version of reality (or, now I feel compelled to add, appropriateness, or other words like that). I was simply relating to that experience as relevant on the topic of freedom which is a very large topic indeed.
I think the crux of freedom (whatever it means) does lie within our individual and collective psyches is all I was really trying to concur with Dancing Buddha about, but for all I know he will negate that he ever even suggested asmuch. That's just the way it is when trying to have a discussion as involved as one about the nature of freedom.
Great topic
— Jul 24, 2009
Great topic here.
Krishnamurti's description of freedom is the one that resonates the most wtih me personally (I will have to paraphrase, as I don't have the book anymore): Freedom is not the ability to do anything we want, but rather the ability to do what we must without complaint, and accept that which we cannot change without despair.
I also like Kahlil Gibran's take on the topic in The Prophet:
And an orator said, "Speak to us of Freedom."
And he answered: At the city gate and by your fireside I have seen you prostrate yourself and worship your own freedom, Even as slaves humble themselves before a tyrant and praise him though he slays them. Aye, in the grove of the temple and in the shadow of the citadel I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff. And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when even the desire of seeking freedom becomes a harness to you, and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfillment. You shall be free indeed when your days are not without a care nor your nights without a want and a grief, But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you rise above them naked and unbound.
And how shall you rise beyond your days and nights unless you break the chains which you at the dawn of your understanding have fastened around your noon hour? In truth that which you call freedom is the strongest of these chains, though its links glitter in the sun and dazzle your eyes.
And what is it but fragments of your own self you would discard that you may become free? If it is an unjust law you would abolish, that law was written with your own hand upon your own forehead. You cannot erase it by burning your law books nor by washing the foreheads of your judges, though you pour the sea upon them. And if it is a despot you would dethrone, see first that his throne erected within you is destroyed. For how can a tyrant rule the free and the proud, but for a tyranny in their own freedom and a shame in their own pride? And if it is a care you would cast off, that care has been chosen by you rather than imposed upon you.
And if it is a fear you would dispel, the seat of that fear is in your heart and not in the hand of the feared. Verily all things move within your being in constant half embrace, the desired and the dreaded, the repugnant and the cherished, the pursued and that which you would escape. These things move within you as lights and shadows in pairs that cling. And when the shadow fades and is no more, the light that lingers becomes a shadow to another light. And thus your freedom when it loses its fetters becomes itself the fetter of a greater freedom.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world."
Mahatma Gandhi
Bound to be Free
— Jul 25, 2009
In one sense, freedom simply means ... "not being bound"
If one has sacrificed, or "lent" his freedom to another .., like a soldier to a comanding officer ... than his killing is not exclusively ones own doing ... hence so much after-war tauma ...
Yet even if one kills solely on ones ow initiative, still there can be different results ... bound by the pride of being able to do so
Or being bound by the endless guilt at having succeded
In Sanskrit there are two definitions of "time" ... Kala ... and Maha Kala ... relative time ... and the absolute nature of sequence ... or sequential manifestation.
In other words nature is always free to grow and thrive ... yet simutaneoiusly it falls into larger seasonal patterns of growth and decay ... which would "appear" as "pre-determined"
Yogis and Buddhists try to become free from the mind itself ... Christians ... free from the tempttion to "compromise freedom" in the name of ... {tree of knowledge ... the car the cash the .... basically whatever we tell ourselves
Hence relative freedom ... and/or absolute freedom ... freedom to choose ... freeedom to not have to.
Freedom from what?
— Jul 28, 2009
Indeed, this is a very useful discussion topic, especially since so many people in America seem to believe unquestionably that they are "free", but I won't go into that.
I think 'freedom' is a misleading term because it requires qualification. It's like the word 'better': something can't just be 'better' - you have to qualify by saying what it's better than. Similarly, people should qualify the word 'freedom' by saying what they are free from. When people say 'freedom' generically, they either mean freedom from physical force, intimidation or a totalitarian government, or they mean freedom from absolutely everything - the freedom to do things without being influenced by anyone or anything else.
I don't think just being 'free' necessarily means that you get bored with your new car (or whatever) and thus endlessly want something new. This is where I think the issue of freedom gets confused with the issue of independent identity. People believe they are free from absolutely everything, and this presupposes that they have an independent ego that is immune to exterior control. And you already seem to agree that such independence is impossible. But I think it is this belief in the independent ego which is the driving force of the consumerist, expansionist mentality that you talk about, and you very astutely link this mentality with economic growth.
Free from what
— Jul 28, 2009
Kivie made a good point. The reason "Freedom and Democracy" just sort of roll off our tongues together here in the USA is that our "Founding Fathers" wanted to persuade the common folk to help kick the British out. "Freedom" was the buzzword for an improved political process. (Howard Zinn makes the point that most Americans were no freer after the revolutionary war than they were before.) Our system still has faults, but most people agree it's better than a monarchy, so by constantly referring to that, we can justify just about anything.
Real freedom, on the other hand, is the feeling you get when skydiving - it's a complete rush of the here and now. Isn't that bizarre, you feel most free when you are totally out of control and can't do anything? That's because the opposite of freedom is desire, and when the moment is exhilarating enough, it distracts you from desire.
So to answer the original question, is freedom sustainable, is YES!
