About Freedom

[mechanic]

Some wonderfull gibberish from a book I have written that I am in the process of editing and hoping to publish. Most people need not bother reading but those who are slightly wierd like myself may enjoy. Any following discusion of my gibberish is absolutely welcome. Plase dont worry about typos. I type fast.

Freedom is a wonderfull concept. What first must be defined is what type of freedom are we discussing.There is the obvious freedom. Material freedom, that is, the freedom to come and go as we please from one place to another. The freedom to do as we please without constraint. Killing another person can be deemed unacceptable in some society and doing so will result in punishment. That is an example of lack of material freedom. But of course, to allow that freedom we would be removing the freedom of the killed to live. Or would we? perhaps some might argue that the freedom to live should only exist if living can be accomplished without assitance. Thus the freedom to kill should be garaunteed and the freedom to live should be earnt. Not really my area of expertise this, I am only in the business of granting the freedom to start living. What you do with your life is not my concern. If I had my choice people would kill less and live more though my choices are often misguided.
 So beyond the material freedoms, a subject that instantly has me digressing sharply, what other freedom is there? There is the freedom of the mind. Freedom of thought. All through childhood the freedom of thought is smashed out of a new soul. As they developed they learn the things they can and cannot admit to thinking, if life is to be pleasant for them. The vast majority upon reaching adolecence have hard wired themselves to avoid freedom of thought and conform to thinking the right way in order to make life pleasant. Questions will be answered in ways that will bring the maximum benefit, or the minimum defecit. Thoughts that could cause difficulties are reshaped, reworded, reorganised and often utterly ignored in the mechanical existence humans train themself to fit in with.
 Even the most deep and loving relationships are often saturated by untruth that has been adopted in order to make the relationship deep and loving in the first place. The very word diplomacy, as it relates to national politics just as to personal relationships, denotes a lack of mental freedom. The freedom to say what is really thought.
 This in itself is a paradox. Mental freedom could be construed as having the ability to lie in order to shape existence. In one sense that is true. It would surely be a contradiction of freedom if humans were all forced to tell the exact truth the entire time. Not only a contradiction of freedom but also a recipe for disaster. However, the paradox is that it is also freedom to be able to think or say the truth no matter the concequences. The freedom to not convey the truth of one's thoughts is a minor freedom compared to the freedom of actualy conveying those truths without concern.
 So much freedom is used in human existence for the purpose of hiding the truths from others and ourselves. That is the reason why the much rarer freedom of expressing those truths without concern is a superiour freedom.
 Let us assume a world where expressing our every thought truthfully was normal behaviour. In that scenario the ability to hide one's thoughts and lie would be the greater freedom. But that has not been the case for humans since they discovered how to hide their true intentions and thoughts from each other, from themselves even. The greater freedom is always that which prevails less at any given moment.
 So while we might rightly assume that, aside from various disputable topics such as the right to kill, material freedom is easily defined in even the most primative of societies, a greater freedom of the mind is not. It never will be. For to acheive a mass exodus from one freedom to the other would reverse the direction of greatness and the greater freedom would still be elusive and rare.
 Those lucky few who do experience the rare freedom of the mind must be greatfull that few others share that freedom with them.
 Once that freedom has been tasted and a new form of abrubt honesty shown in the character of a soul it will be impossible to take that freedom away. The freedom or incarceration of the mind is only under the power of the individual within who's mind it dwells. Despite finding the freedom of the mind it is still possible to enjoy the freedom of deception. The question is, would the individual want to? Perhaps they would still find appropriate moments where the freedom to lie would be more valuable than the freedom of honesty. There again we find the value of the less prevalent freedom increased exponetialy as it is exercised less. The soul whose mind is free to be honest with it's thoughts will find huge value in the lie. The soul who uses the lie regularly to avoid the possibility that the truth may be difficult can find very little value in the lies but perhaps some greater value in short periods of clarity and honesty.
 So can there be a middle ground, a safe haven between lies and truth that provides the maximum benefit and maximum sense of freedom? No, absolutely not. For to have a middle ground between truth and untruth would be to devalue both sides of the equation equaly.
 Freedom of the mind therefore is a conundrum of untold frequency. The only solution to ask one's self 'which do I value more'. Do I value the freedom of honesty more? Then I should walk the line of deception with occasional spurts of honesty so as the moments of honesty will be that much more valuable in small quantity. Or do I value the freedom to deceive more? Then I shall walk the line of honesty so as the moments where I may enjoy my freedom to deceive may be that much more valuable.
 The majority of humanity in my experince enjoys the value of honesty and thus deceives everyone, first and foremost themselves, for the majority of the time. That is the reason why I have come to believe that true freedom in the mind lies in absolute honesty with one's own thoughts to one's self and also in the ability to take that jumping leap into the unknown that is brutal honesty to others. It is however very difficult, perhaps even foolish, to completely release the lifeline of deceit.
 I always viewed this type of mental developement like jumping from a high cliff into water. On the first jump takes it a long time to build up the courage to launch out into open space. The first rush of freefall is intense. The first splash to confirm the previously uncertain saftey is relieving. The second jump is easy, even thouroughly enjoyable. The third has become second nature.
 But do remember, dear reader, that this is only considered a developement because the majority work the opposite way and it is more than likely that one has been conditioned to think that opposite way also. It is only considered a developement because it is assumed that we all start from the same possition.

[des506]

wow... all that for freedom??

anyway.. nice read!

[Sonicblu]

Interesting topic, have had much debate on this very topic on another forum.

Freedom is a personal expectation, a concept.

One that I personally do not believe exists in reality.

Is freedom something we expect we should have, or is it something we grant to others?

But then again gravity is not so nice.

 

[mechanic]

perhaps I should mention, the main character/narator of the book is quite insane and possibly dangerous.

[Silat]

perhaps I should mention, the main character/narator of the book is quite insane and possibly dangerous.

So it is a bio?

[Scherf]

silat wins




(as long as he means autobiography)

[coombz]

honest opinion - i'm intrigued (for some reason I am reminded of Heinlein's Starship Troopers) and would like to know more ( ), but it's kind of painfully convoluted to try and read through atm and needs a lot of polish beyond fixing the typos. perhaps it kind of works for a dangerously insane person's monologue though :]

if you were asking for comments on the concepts of freedom expressed within, sorry!

[mechanic]

haha Lew. Close to accurate no doubt

Coombzy, I'm glad you said that, the narator is the epitome of convoluted at times.