The Essence of Freedom

Chill the f*** out man.

He said he'd let you know when it's done, and he will. Don't rush him, if you were standing behind a great artist who was painting his masterpiece. Would you say, "Stop doing that nonsense, I want my face painted!!!" ?

When you talk to me, I automatically 'receive' the conceptualizations attached to your words(language) and I always feel compelled to respond because that's the way it has always been and that's the way it 'ought to be'. This is a burden. You have 'interrupted' me from my own conceptualization of the same moment for the sake of the approval of yours. Freedom from this would involve losing the attachments(conceptualizations) of language so that one is free to 'Be' as he would without them.

I decline

I suppose "freedom" is used to refer to the absence of restraint. But I wonder who is it that's free? I see the ego-self, or restrained subject, as an illusion. If my perception is correct then we properly identify with everything, and that makes the restrainer and restrained one. That is the essence of freedom.

What I really want to communicate is my view that the world is best seen monistically. We are either completely free (as I suggested above) or we are completely constrained (as suggested by determinism). But those are only half the Truth. We are actually both.

There is no one to experience 'freedom', because the 'experiencer' is a distraction from Be-ing.

All 'you' can really do is observe/comment.

'Freedom' is not trying to shoe-horn what can only observe/comment into some 'thing'.

Noone to experience either freedom or restraint, but it's felt nevertheless. Delusion!
What do you mean by Be-ing? Existance? I agree that what is really done is observation. We ARE our experiences; noone to comment on them.

Who said freedom was felt? If you believe that what is really done is observation, what is there to be felt? I have a problem with the word 'delusion' here. If there is only observation and all else is 'delusion' then what isn't 'delusion'? See what I'm getting at? If all that there is to be 'felt' is 'delusion', than doesn't that negate what 'delusion' means in principle?

Also, if there is no commenting then how are we having this conversation?

Freedom is not trying to shoe-horn Be-ing(observing/commenting) into some'thing' which it is not.

This has been a strange experience.

By "observation" I refer both to (raw) sensations and their (cooked) interpretations. It is the latter mainly that is delusion. A mirage (e.g.,water) as a conditionally generated sensation is real but its interpretation (the meaning ascribed to it) is delusional. When one observes one's sensations directly (as in meditation) they are seen to be empty. They are given meaning by means of language and other devices afterwards.

This a slightly drunk Existential potential-screw your book, screw your lack of substantial replies-how dare you refuse to reply to a comment posted on a discussion that you, yes you "dasein", first initiated. That simply, is not cricket.

to be in a debate, is to engage in a debate, but maybe dasein, as a Heideggerian entity doesn't engage in debate, maybe thats against its notion of "being"-I don't know.

Now don't be like that EP. If you do he'll put you on ignore. And slowly but surely (because anyone that disagrees with him gets put on ignore) his threads will fill with posts that he knows nothing about...entirely amusing, but screwy too, lol.

What are you like 5?

For me (right now) freedom is being what I am at any particular on-going momemt: cold in winter, warm in summer, sleepy at night, energetic in the morning, etc. etc.

Have a look at this Original Post, which implies 'disagree with me and I'll put you on ignore' (who does that in an OP?), and his posts in other threads about doing the same.

...I'm poking fun at the obvious outcome of his penchant for ignoring people. Sadly, your apparent discipleship of him isn't a laughing matter.

He puts people on ignore because there isn't anything worth arguing about.

What I believe he has(and I say 'believe' because there is no way I could possibly 'know') is what you would call 'conviction'. He knows who he is and therefor he speaks 'truth'.

Go back and read some of his posts and you'll 'see' what I'm talking about, that is if you're willing to 'see'.

What’s the point in Dasein even starting this DISCUSSION, if he's unwilling to continue taking part in it and arguing his case? What he has to say is indeed worth arguing about, but if what you say is true, that what he has to say are simply his "convictions", then maybe he's a closed person, not open to debating, or questioning his convictions.

You however, seem perfect for Dasein, because you seem to just be blindly accepting everything he has to say, which seems to fit in with what Dasein would have everyone do with what he has to say-being critical, on the other hand, takes more than just "seeing" what someone has to say.

He starts these discussions so that everyone who reads them will have a chance to 'see' what he has 'seen'. He doesn't have anything to argue about, nor is he obligated to.

Do you honestly think he's trying to 'convert' people here or something?

It's just text on your computer screen, why does it get you so mad?

In relation to the italicised portion - that could be favourably 'argued' in relation to these forums, but it's an entropic view. The question is - is there anything that could improve my perceptions, my awareness, my knowledge, my logic patterns, my empathy....etc.

A few things :

- Conviction is a dangerous thing. It leads us not to question the basis of our 'truths', or to see how our 'truths' may not be applicable to others (or to specific circumstances) etc.

- I haven't yet met anyone who knows everything about who they are. I doubt even Buddha new such.

- Truth is a nefarious beast, based on the 'honest' perception of the person creating the 'truth'...whether or not it is correct.

As for him knowing who he is, I quite disagree - for I have seen a lot of self deception, avoidance, and condescenscion in his posts. These aren't necessary for someone who 'knows who he is'.

i have read your topic and replys and have consciously understood what u are 'trying' to say. im not much of a philospher the last book i read was 'the marvel of light' by Alfred Shmid' which i loved. and just as they define a state of being like us define a moment in time rather than evolving state of being then not being. if we could freeze time for one moment how would u define it, does it take a series of events or just a word. clinging to me are a merried of sounds colours, scents and feelings, rather than trying to define or break down this reality perhaps the God here is both the teacher and the student once lost and now reborn. thanks