the dynamic relationship between freedom, authority, habit, and the eog/otherness boundary

... an interesting intersection of thingies here

...

Freedom: "you are free when you do things you don't have to do" -- Bozo Faust 2014

Comments

Seth says

seth 2014-11-14 05:58:16 17935

source: Miki Kashtan, Ph.D.

"We accept, in particular, another either/or aspect of the prevalent power paradigm: that the only possible responses to power are submission or rebellion."

.... [skipping to the conclusion]

"Soon I plan to write about the glimpses I already have of what it can be like to choose to respond to authority with our full humanity, with power, with courage to face consequences" ...

... by his own words it's not, "either submit to authority or rebel", but rather, "submit, rebell, or voluntarily choose". Or in other words we choose which authority we "give being to" or "believe in". So we, ourselves, are the ultimate authority ... the ultimate decider.

Yet, what we choose by what we do, again and again is primarily what has worked in the past ... or in other words, what we habitually do. And that applies to each of us individually, and what we do collectively. Habits dominate what we do, and what our society does. That is a power against which, i personally, will not rebel, to which i must submit ...

.. Ahh

yet i can choose my habits ... and so too can we choose out habits as a society. To deny that is to deny our very humanity.

Seth says

Eiamyme 2014-11-14 12:30:38 17937

Examine also the desire to belong to something (human race maybe) or otherness.

Well yes a desire to belong is strong and clear

... and effects the dynamic of which we speak.

But one does not "belong to otherness" ... desiring same would be fundamentally flawed, for otherness is precisely that to which you do not belong ... once you suddenly belong to it, it no longer is otherness. I think there is a famous poem about always searching for a woman on the beach in the moon light and never reaching her ... that would be a good illustration here ... but i can't find it at the moment.

Seth says

re 17956

... sorry stream of consciousness coming ...

not sure i would say it the way Heinline did.

me, I am free when i am responsible to my own morals. In other words i determine what is right or wrong in thought, feeling, and deed. A completely free individual is, in no way, tethered by external power or authority

... as such, me thinks, complete freedom is impossible for a human being. he would not be human, but would be more like a super intelligent unaffectionate cat.

The notion of freedom that i reject is the one i think i got from GW: your are free if you do what is good, otherwise you are not ... nevertheless you are free to volentairly choose it (lol). Good, being love and beauty and true, or whatever other superlatives that are currently floating boats. I think Heinline rejected that as well, in that he said, "i am free, no matter what rules surround me" ... but then he goes on and does not seem to acknowledged that to be free he must determine what morally responsible means for himself.

I think freedom is scary and "Awesomeness" at the same time. there is a strang thing about it that just occured to me ... to act just to be free (for that value alone) is just about the stupidest thing i have ever thought of. in other words, if i worked to increase my freedom alone, then i woul not feel human ... i would feel more like a cat. Others of course will feel peculairly differently about increasing freedom alone being an overriding priority. But i am not them, and they are not me, anymore than i am a tree or a dog or a babbling brook.

... you see i have this commitment to being human ... a thing i have submitted to ... a thing i accept ... and i love that i am just a human. the strange thing is that is not something i chose ... rather it was something that i chose to accept. i even remember the moment i made that choice. hmmmm .... i hate to say it ... but i notice how that is similar to GW's version of freedom.

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-11-19 14:43:37 17937

M 2014-11-19 09:08:46 17937

KEWL!

- good that you moved the saying to another item where I am free to ignore it when I choose. GW, RS & PR say you are free in the higher self if you do things out of love & are intimate with your higher self. The tree of life is open at both ends & so I suppose you are free if you do them out of hate. One could perhaps read the philosophy of freedom (RS) rather than speculate & joust the windmills of authoritarianism .

Well yes, GW, RS & PR version of freedom is {IF you do X, then you are free}. You expressed X as "you do things out of love & are intimate with your higher self" ... but i have heard it expressed in various ways. To me that IF in these conception makes that way of defining freedom a farce ... and i reject it. It doesn't really matter what the X is ... if i am free, then i decide what X is. In other words, there can be no conditions placed on freedom. I know that is stark and makes freedom scary ... but none the less I don't know how you can put conditions on being free and still say you are free ... it is a logical contradiction.

You might be more in alignment with the LOA people - go for what feels good. I say an opium addict is not free in spite of the fact that he might be able to go to a desert island & grow poppies & extract the sap & smoke it at will. Even mother nature has a few requirements on her own. Incarnation provides a few more etc. Know thyself then you might know where you are free.

Seth says

M 2014-11-19 09:08:46 17937

KEWL!

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-11-19 14:43:37 17937

Well yes, GW, RS & PR version of freedom is {IF you do X, then you are free}.

Not true!
Not true at all!
Not that simple!
Read Philosophy of Freedom or maybe watch the YouTubes on it.

Seth says

seth 2014-11-20 08:56:31 17937

M 2014-11-20 08:38:21 17937

you didn't provide your own definition of freedom

Sure i did mark ... i was able to do it by understanding what GW was saying and agreeing with that part which matched my own. At the same time i was showing you where i zig (on my conceptions) to GW's zag.

... but if you want a simple definition .... try "you are free when you do things you don't have to do" ... period ... nothing more need be said ... no further restrictions on a notion of freedom need be applied ... and if they are, then they dilute it.

Seth says

M 2014-11-20 00:39:23 17937

GW on freedom P.2444 to wit:

source: ...

" ... Thus Freedom is possible only when we can devote ourselves to something without being coerced by necessity. Hence a free deed is always an act of Love under Will transcending the personal & on behalf of the universal. Thinking & Willing are opposite poles.

...

35 years 3 months 4 days ago (today's throw)

So what's your definition?

Well ok ... in essence GW is saying "you are free when you do things you don't have to do" ... and, yes, that does always feel good, "an act of love" as he says. That is the way it feels to me too.

He goes on to author his particular message ... "transcending the personal & on behalf of the unversal". Well "transcending the personal" is certainly what i am always talking about ... that is going beyond my ego ... that is anchoring my being in the external world. I certainly can get behind that, for it is the direction i have chosen for my life. I am sure that is not the direction GW was prescribing; but i am free to choose that direction regardless of his teaching, no?

GW's, "to do something on behalf of the universal", is a bit more pesky for me to sign on to. I mean it doesn't seem like i have any choice in that matter, one way or another. So that takes me right back to doing stuff that i have to do ... not much doing stuff that i don't have to do involved with that ... no freedom allowed there. You see the universe is constituted such that i am bound by its consequences ... i can not not be responsible for my deeds. The popular memes proclaiming that as something to be chosen are selling coals in Newcastel as far as i can tell . Try to deny the consequences of your actions and they will happen anyway. Me, i go Muslim on that one and just submit to "the will of God" ...

.

Then GW says, as if to prove his prior assertions, "Thinking & Willing are opposite poles" ... which, of course i also believe ... though i would hasten to add that it seems like a three way pole of thinking, feeling, and willing. But with thinking and feeling, there is no "universal consequences" to contend with, as there are with deeds in the world. No it is "opposite" ... for my thinking and feeling is a consequence of my own prior experience and constitution ... it is peculiar to just me ... no way to transcend that ... or so i think now.

I am sure i missed a lot of nuances in his scripture there ... please feel free to tease them out.

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-11-20 09:07:58 17937

seth 2014-11-20 08:56:31 17937

M 2014-11-20 08:38:21 17937

you didn't provide your own definition of freedom

Let me know if you ever achieve such a state of freedom - free from your own opinions, beliefs, rwg, genesthai, others' opinions, etc. Sure, you can say you don't have to take a shit at 8 AM exactly, but is that really free period!? Are the motivations free? Try finding a free deed somewhere.

As originality -> 0 ; ponder if you will ever be free of GW or jousting that windmill.

Seth says

anyway i have emerged just now into the world of consequences ... so will get back to you

on all of this.

Mark de LA says

Wikipedia topic of "free will" & the 18,900,000 items provided by the search google free will might disabuse some of the notion that the wisdom of philosophers & others throughout the millennia is not superfluous to Bozo's Gordian Knot of:

Freedom:
"you are free when you do things you don't have to do"
-- Bozo Faust 2014

Seth says

i don't know mark ... i can't find anything tangible in your last two comments. My definition of freedom here was really just a translation of GW's that you quoted. I just said it more plainly and directly ... and removed his restrictions.

Placing any restriction on being free is a logical contradiction. The story that should be followed to be free, can be a great thing in itself ... but please, don't call that freedom ... call it something else. Ideal or ultimate freedom can have no story attached that you must follow to be called "free".

Certainly i am not claiming that i am ultimately free in that regard. Nor have i implied such a thing here. Almost everything i do is a consequence of my prior experience ... which i take as a good reason to be careful what i experience.

Then too the distinction between me and the world is kind of a bit arbitrary none the less it exists ... it is not just something that i imagine. That is the jucy paradox that, me thinks, we are all chewing on.

And sure, acting out of love, yet not having to, is the way to go. But if we have to act out of love, to be called "free", then we should put that new sense of the word in the dictionary because it is not in there now.

Seth says

source: mark
eah .... pretty boring this freedom thingy .. not a biggy. At some level one could look at freedom as the founding principle inspiring the birth of the United States of America. Nowadays, however even that is being munged away into unrecognizability by the idealists of big & farther reaching government with maybe kings & czars to worship. No need for freedom if the ruling class is the source of LOA & all we want is votes & allegiance. Freedom is bread & circuses.

I wouldn't call Being tangible except for those who have the inner ability to hear & see her bells ringing. She is silent these days ... once cracked by ringing with overwhelming enthusiasm.

This item has run its natural course for me .... keep on talking or not ... I set it free.

whatever.

Regarding freedom all i did here was to separate acting free from somebody's authority of what you should do to call yourself doing that. There was no acknowledgement that you even understand that .... oh well, no problem, move along.

Acting free, uncoerced by external consequences, is my personal thrust into the world ... in a way it is what i give it back ... it is my special contribution ... great stuff !! ... very hard to actually do. I'm going to leave it there unless you have something to add yourself.

c hoy says

Your top 100 words in this post tag cloud with frequencies.
http://tagcrowd.com/pdf/1416709114_cloud.pdf

the dynamic relationship between freedom, authority, habit, and the eog/otherness boundary

Tags

Comments

35 years 3 months 4 days ago (today's throw)

See Also