17
   

What Do You Need To Be Free?

 
 
Telamon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2010 11:31 pm
@William,
Freedom is an illusion of privileges granted from us to ourselves. As long as there is more than one person standing, “freedom” is theoretical, thusly unattainable. Cooperation is a compromise, undermining the purpose of freedom in the first place. Granted, compromise can appear to be ‘freedom” to an extent, but it is no more than a superficial disillusion.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2010 10:40 am
@Caroline,
Caroline wrote:

To be free and not enslaved is the only way to live, we are free to be ourselves and express ourselves without fear. To be enslaved is like taking a butterfly and putting it in a box, it's not free to fly and be a butterfly.


Are we really free to express ourselves without fear? One who expresses themselves without any fear at all is either the ultimate conformist or would be ostracized from society quickly. Or are we talking about without fear of legal reprisal?
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2010 10:43 am
@GoshisDead,
No fear of abuse.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2010 10:50 am
@Caroline,
In that case I would argue that either we are not free per your defenition or that your defenition needs a bit of tweeking. By the definition proposed a high school girl is in no way free to express herself without fear of abuse. A frustrated office worker is in no way free to express himself without fear of abuse. A fundamental christian is no free to express herself in a state university biology course without fear of abuse. An abortion advocate is not free to express himself at Oral Roberts university without fear of abuse. In fact most constitutions and other legal documents guaranteeing 'freedom' guarantees the right to abuse verbally as much as they guarantee the right of no abusive expression. Would we deny the high school cliques right to be comepletely mean and abusive to the outsider girl?
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2010 10:58 am
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:
a reasonably well functioning mind


my answer comes by way of an old nintendo gameboy advertisement

Where Ever You Are, Be Some Where Else

they of course meant by using their product, i adapted it to my mind, which is why i say, if i have a reasonably well functioning mind i'm free
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2010 02:08 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

djjd62 wrote:
a reasonably well functioning mind


my answer comes by way of an old nintendo gameboy advertisement

Where Ever You Are, Be Some Where Else
I remember, in my youth, we knew absolutely nothing
about other celestial objects; we had not yet even landed
on the Moon.

Now, I look up at nite at bright celestial objects
and I know that if I were there,
I sure woud wish that I coud get back here.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2010 02:14 pm
@Telamon,
Telamon wrote:
Freedom is an illusion of privileges granted from us to ourselves.
Freedom is having been STINGY
in granting domestic jurisdiction to government.

The domestic jurisdiction of government
and
personal liberty are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL.





David
Telamon
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2010 07:32 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Is this suppose to be a counter to my statement or a variation or am I missing something?

I agree with the second comment, confirming my original reply.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2010 10:55 pm
@Telamon,
Telamon wrote:

Is this suppose to be a counter to my statement or a variation or am I missing something?

I agree with the second comment, confirming my original reply.

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2010 11:40 pm
@William,
No what, I just need to be myself ! Wink
Telamon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 12:19 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Your definition of freedom is different than mine apparently. Your so called “freedom”, is restricted within the confines of the laws you and your piers have set, thusly limiting your freedom, a paradox in and of itself.
William
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 04:50 am
Thanks every one and now let me ask you to consider ownership and the shackles that come with any deed. Why? What is the need to own anything altruistically speaking. Are we not bound by what we have always claimed to be ours? We are not innately selfish; we had to learn to be giving. To have and to hold makes slaves of us individually and collectively.

Usage is better than title when trust and reliance are in place. Observe all that you have duplicates of when one would suffice. Style and status are so distracting it’s difficult to understand what freedom truly means. Think of AMASS; a mass of people gathering. Uh oh! Gathering unto themselves, why? A rainy day? To control? Create envy? Be proud?

When one is free it is disheartening to observe the bound and shackles of others. The far away looks, the wandering gazes and so rare the smiling eyes. Oh, those so beautiful smiling eyes. You never see those in the “I” ones, only the free ones who if the truth were known, own little and can see...................really see, not looking for something else, but happy none the less.

I think all would be amazed at what comes their way, naturally, mentally, physically, metaphysically and really. Just enough to keep a gentle momentum onward awaiting tomorrow and what it will bring when weight and burdens begin to disappear from amassing so much.
Amazing, simply amazing. A little “does” go a long way.

We have always confused quality and quantity. Consider one and what they need as far a place setting for a meal. One plate, one spoon, one fork, one glass and another appears to join in that meal and how that meal can be shared. One bite each sharing that fork, that knife and that spoon sharing and enjoying that repast.

So much, we what to do that sharing in so many ways heard and observed in all those colloquialisms we use all the time. “May I help you?” “Can I be of service?” Without inquiry. We would know if most were free any one without who was not. An amassing of many for one until balance is achieved. That’s when life will begin and we join creating the EARTHLING.

Here is something I think you will find interesting. Consider the word "earth". Why that particular word? Why, from where and how long is not important, that’s the word that we collectively use. There are only three words that can be formed from those letters: HATER, RATHE and HEART. Wow! I like the last one best. I hope you do too.

Browse “rathe” and I think you find that word interesting too. It’s archaic and rarely used unless you drop the “e” and begin it with a “w”. Wouldn’t it be nice if “that word” could be stricken from all usage!? Of course the first word would go too in that grouping of three. I do find it sad that we had to hate to understand what love means.

Yes, it is difficult to imagine what freedom would be like. If you think of gifts rather than possessions it would be quite different, huh!? It is difficult to imagine a world where people are not so concerned with amassing stuff. A benevolent “quid pro quo” rather than any “status quo”.

William
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 05:01 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
No what, I just need to be myself ! Wink
Who the hell ELSE r u gonna be ??????
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 05:03 am
@Telamon,
Telamon wrote:
Your definition of freedom is different than mine apparently. Your so called “freedom”, is restricted within the confines of the laws you and your piers have set, thusly limiting your freedom, a paradox in and of itself.
No; it is laissez faire NON-interference.

(Incidentally, please note that a pier is a pillar or a post.)





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 05:09 am
@William,
William wrote:
Thanks every one and now let me ask you to consider ownership
and the shackles that come with any deed. Why?
What is the need to own anything altruistically speaking.
Are we not bound by what we have always claimed to be ours? We are not innately selfish;
I DISPUTE that; minimally, I am innately selfish.
I take pride in that, and I object to speaking altruisticly.
I am an advocate of greed (not to say stinginess).

Out of hedonism, I have given away cash when
it was not expected, to create joy, but that was fun for me also,
not just for the donee-beneficiary.

I certainly HOPE that everyone else is innately selfish; seems natural and LOGICAL.





David
William
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 05:30 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

William wrote:
Thanks every one and now let me ask you to consider ownership
and the shackles that come with any deed. Why?
What is the need to own anything altruistically speaking.
Are we not bound by what we have always claimed to be ours? We are not innately selfish;
I DISPUTE that; minimally, I am innately selfish.
I take pride in that, and I object to speaking altruisticly.
I am an advocate of greed (not to say stinginess).

Out of hedonism, I have given away cash when
it was not expected, to create joy, but that was fun for me also,
not just for the donee-beneficiary.

I certainly HOPE that everyone else is innately selfish; seems natural and LOGICAL.
David


"Given away cash"? For no reason? To who? And why? Guilt? Do you think people want anything "given" to them?

William

Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 06:14 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Hi William !
If I am coerced to be what somebody else wants me to be, its gone be difficult to be myself...but the freedom to be myself its also my incarceration don´t you think ?
William
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 06:29 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Hi William !
If I am coerced to be what somebody else wants me to be, its gone be difficult to be myself...but the freedom to be myself its also my incarceration don´t you think ?


Yes when you consider self "over" others. Yes, being ones self is difficult to imagine. I guess you could say it's more of a reaction that an action. A natural polarity from good to more good as it relates to all that acquisition and contribution mean. A much more refined equilibrium of in and out. Coercion, imposition and force always have made and utilized slaves. It has always been; does that mean it always should be?

William
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 06:49 am
@William,
William wrote:
Thanks every one and now let me ask you to consider ownership
and the shackles that come with any deed. Why?
What is the need to own anything altruistically speaking.
Are we not bound by what we have always claimed to be ours? We are not innately selfish;
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I DISPUTE that; minimally, I am innately selfish.
I take pride in that, and I object to speaking altruisticly.
I am an advocate of greed (not to say stinginess).

Out of hedonism, I have given away cash when
it was not expected, to create joy, but that was fun for me also,
not just for the donee-beneficiary.

I certainly HOPE that everyone else is innately selfish; seems natural and LOGICAL.
David
William wrote:
"Given away cash"? For no reason? To who?
Mostly to beautiful chicks. The reason was to create unexpected joy.
For instance, around noon, in Mid-town Manhattan, dense with pedestrian traffic,
I aimed at the most beautiful chicks, probably on their lunch hours
and gave them $100.oo bills,
and in restaurants, calling over a beautiful waitress
and telling her that she won "the most beautiful girl around here contest",
whose prize is a $100.oo bill that I hand her.

In the 1980s, I was seeing a young lady who had an 8 year old boy.
While travelling in another (distant) State, I mailed him a letter,
playing mind games with him. (I knew that he got home from school and he opened the mail.)

The typed letter said something like:

"Mr. Joe Blow
Street Address

Dear Sir:

1. It is the purpose of this writing to inform you that you won
second place in the Contest.

2. Here 's the money [including a $100.oo bill]

3. Better luck next time.

Contest Committee "
[postmarked in a distant State, with which,
presumably, he has had no contact]
It was intended to produce a: "WHAT the HELL?????" effect on him.

It occurred to me that each time that he tells that story,
whether to his friends (or enemies) in school, or to his grandchildren, he will re-live it,
thereby multiplying the created joy.
That is efficient.

There r other examples.

Most of the time it has been unexpected, tho Christmas has been included.
Such simple gifts as automatic umbrellas that have been surreptitiously stuffed
with clandestine $20s, $50s and $100 bills can be effective too.
Thay fall on the friend when she opens it, to test it.
(Sometimes thay shrieeek, when that happens.)
In addition to beautiful chicks, I 've also given to children and to friends.
For example dropping money (mostly dimes n quarters) into the grass below
from a passing colorful hot air balloon -- like for an Easter Egg hunt.
(executed so that safety is not an issue)
Its a lot of fun seeing the silver reflections in the sun as thay fall.
Have u tried it ?



William wrote:
And why? Guilt?
I am not guilty of anything.






William wrote:
Do you think people want anything "given" to them?

William
OBVIOUSLY thay DO!!! What a question!
like questioning the existence of gravity




David
0 Replies
 
Telamon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 04:39 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Telamon wrote:
Your definition of freedom is different than mine apparently. Your so called “freedom”, is restricted within the confines of the laws you and your piers have set, thusly limiting your freedom, a paradox in and of itself.
No; it is laissez faire NON-interference.

(Incidentally, please note that a pier is a pillar or a post.)

David


laissez faire:
1. the theory or system of government that upholds the autonomous character of the economic order, believing that government should intervene as little as possible in the direction of economic affairs.
2. the practice or doctrine of noninterference in the affairs of others, esp. with reference to individual conduct or freedom of action.


By definition one, said government upholds economic order with little intervention, but intervention none the less. Therein I am denied full uninhibited freedom to do as I wish.
By definition two, setting a doctrine of noninterference in the affairs of others, I am unable to act on anything that might affect others. Pretty strait forward in limiting me, thusly limiting freedom to do whatever I choices I might make.

A government, of any kind, cannot be a non-interference government by definition alone; “the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society.”

You obviously refuse to think beyond your own narrow thought process, and fail to understand the point being conveyed.

(Incidentally, please note underlining and bolding words can come across as both arrogant and insulting more often than not, when used in a public forum.)
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 07:12:42