Freedom is a word often used as something of great value in this world. According to the Cambridge dictionary freedom is “the condition or right of being able or allowed to do, say, think, etc. whatever you want to, without being controlled or limited”. Now within that definition which is the definition that we’ve accepted and have been living by, freedom is about being egocentric. And that’s how freedom is often being lived as a word and as a value. People often do believe in freedom, and because of the positive connotations attached to the word – it seems that it is a ‘right’ thing to do’. But freedom in a space-time reality of consequence doesn’t exist within that definition.
When we place the word ‘freedom’ within the context of reality, that can be in fact lived, we can see that every action has a consequence on the ‘whole’. Even moving an item cause a consequence (the place where the item is placed has changed). Obviously there are actions which consequences are irrelevant, and there are such which consequences are relevant. Whether a consequence is relevant, depends on influence it will have on lives of other beings. So in looking at that consequential quality of the world, we cannot stand by this definition of freedom as “being able to do what we want” and claim to not hurt others, because whatever is done has consequences. Therefore, it’s not freedom, because one person might “do what they want” but it has consequence on other beings lives, and it has to be considered if we’re talking about REAL freedom. Because freedom that is real, takes into consideration the freedom of ALL beings. Without taking all into consideration – we are not talking about freedom – we are talking about exploitation. As one’s beings freedom is dependant on exploiting another. And exploitation is pretty much opposite to freedom. So in living of a such self-interested definition/idea of freedom – we create the opposite of it, because through gaining freedom for self and ignoring freedom of others – we through the nature of the consequential space time reality enslave other beings that provide us with having this freedom in the expense of loosing or limiting theirs.
So to understand freedom, we have to understand enslavement. Because the self-interested freedom is what gives birth to the enslavement – in the way I have just described it above. Examples of that can be see everywhere in the world. Things like slavery, or economic slavery – some have freedom, while other work all the time; war – those who are stronger rob and destroy the fruits of work of those that loose; fascism, nationalism, racism etc. – people believe that their right to freedom is paramount, and believe that it’s more important then others, and perceive those as ‘lower’ then them because of some kind of justification that they make up of why they should be more free then others; rape – the rapist is exercising their sexual freedom, while not considering the freedom of the victim. Those are just few but quite clear examples of how the currently lived definition of freedom based on self-interest is playing out in the world. In the ‘smaller’ scale’ this plays out daily in our lives also. And it might not be so extreme as the examples as I’ve mentioned, but it’s there, and it’s creating the bigger events, as we collectively take part in influencing each other and constituting a system that will work and act in the image and likeness of who we are individually.
So to change the living and thus the creation of consequence of living this self-interested definition of the word freedom. We have to look at what is real freedom. And that is a freedom that is all inclusive. An all inclusive freedom, is what takes into consideration the freedom of all living beings (human, animal and plant alike). That would be real freedom, that could be called valuable if lived practically. But that can only come once we understand and acknowledge the inherent equality of all life, and when we recognize that every living thing has the right to freedom. And while it might not be able to perfectly supply that – we surely can move into that direction and practically make something much better of this world, where all would benefit and have more freedom – that is certainly possible.
So to get to real freedom, it HAS to be based on a foundation of equality. So that ALL can be free, because otherwise there will always be masters and slaves. And that is what we acknowledge and understand within proposing the Eqaul Money System. Until money and thus the whole system isn’t based on equality – there is no freedom possible, that has to be the foundation. Every other approach will lead some to exploit others through the principle of self-centered freedom.
Hello. I agree with you that the dictionary definition of freedom is nonsense, because it is relative freedom (freedom in respect to others). I suspect what you are looking for is absolute freedom, but that is not something you can find in the world of relative behaviour, and that includes all notions of equality, including equal money! The problem does not begin with ‘self-interest’, it begins with the notion of a separate ‘self’ in which we have that interest. This idea of being a separate self is actually an imposition, it is the fundamental oppression from which we want freedom. The natural free state is to be non-separate. To maintain a separate ‘self’ or ‘identity’ demands a lot of energy because it is not something like a rock that can rest in its own existence. It does not have its own existence, it is a projection of the mind, and it can only exist when the mind is in motion. It is a bundle of thoughts that take a lot of hard work to memorize, and then continually remember and refine. In our natural state we do not remember ourselves, everything we need to ‘know’ is there in front of us and we act spontaneously without friction. That is freedom. Whatever happens then is ‘OK’, in the sense that there is no overt self-interest. If another person would object there would be instant engagement on a non-judgemental level, and an immediate resolution. But if we are constantly making an effort to remember and put a constructed ‘self’ into ‘play’, having invested all that effort, no wonder we want to look after it and make sure it gets the best of everything! And we are so distracted by it that we spend little time attending to what is actually happening around us and in other people. And that leads to friction and loss of freedom. Any pseudo spiritual talk you might hear about creating a new ‘identity’ is also largely futile – it is another plate-spinning exercise. Your real identity is not something you can create. It is your whole being, that you already have, beyond ideas and politics and self-help talk. So the problem is one of perception and identity, and not a problem of money or anything beyond your notion of ‘self’.
I write this to you because you seem intelligent. Your post started somewhere good, you defined the problem well. But instead of coming to a real resolution, you resorted to a political idea. You cannot know the reality through ideas.
Hi Tom. That’s quite a response and I agree with some points you’ve written out and some I would discuss.
I’ll start from the end.
“…you resorted to a political idea. You cannot know the reality through ideas.”
I ended with a political/economic solution because this is the area where decisions are made about the laws/rules that we have to live according to. And currently politics is where changes can be made practically that will have real impact. And I totally agree with the last statement that reality cannot be known through ideas. I don’t have to solution in my hand, but it should be something that we should work towards, and it should be investigated – to bring into reality a better monetary/economic system. Which is currently done only mostly by some professors at universities, here and there, that study economics and in fact look on how to establish something else, as the current economic structure have many built-in flaws that just cannot be changed as they are in the very design of capitalism. Unfortunately they are theoretics, but it’s pretty hard to not be a theoretic and to not work with ideas when you want to design a new economic system. To test it practically would require to actually implement it — and work from there — so it’s definitively a tough nut to crack, as ideas are just mind projections as you’ve said, and they may take some things in consideration, but they may be totally different then ‘the real thing’ of how something works in fact, and what consequences it has.
“Any pseudo spiritual talk you might hear about creating a new ‘identity’ is also largely futile – it is another plate-spinning exercise. Your real identity is not something you can create. It is your whole being, that you already have, beyond ideas and politics and self-help talk.”
We probably have a bit different definition/understanding of ‘identity’ and ‘the whole being’. So I would just base the understanding of ‘who we are’ on how we influence reality in a in a time-space consequential reality, as it is the very causality in this physical reality that is a great feedback mechanism, that most would agree to be quite accurate. Now from there I would say that it is possible to change how a person influence their world and reality through their own directed consistent effort, and to become that permanently and turning it into a habit, just like the habit we had beforehand. It’s hard to overcome a lot of stuff, but I would think twice before placing a ‘line’ somewhere and saying that it’s impossible without fully understanding in detail with enough evidence/feedback supporting that. And that matter is something I find extremely important, as saying ‘I am just who I am, and cannot change’ is the perfect excuse/justification. So it’s relevant to really train oneself to have insight into such points because there are those 2 poles that we can go to. One is that you’ve described which is creating an idea of apparent change, and another is using the ‘I am who I am’ as an excuse. Which is something that each one has to deal with, with their own self-honesty, as they are the only one’s that can actually know.
“The problem does not begin with ‘self-interest’, it begins with the notion of a separate ‘self’ in which we have that interest. This idea of being a separate self is actually an imposition, it is the fundamental oppression from which we want freedom. The natural free state is to be non-separate.”
“So the problem is one of perception and identity, and not a problem of money or anything beyond your notion of ‘self’.”
I’ll answer with just a question. How can we perceive other beings as one with us, when we don’t feel what they feel, we don’t experience what they experience, and we are not even aware about what is going on with them? Furthermore, I find it hard even to find info about atrocities, suffering and abuse that happens in the world – it seems that people actually don’t want to hear/see those kind of things — not even mentioning perceiving those that suffer as one/part with/of self.
Cheers
Larys, thanks for your reply. It has certainly been thought provoking and I have thought a lot and written a lot, and revised my words and cut them down. My response is still long though – sorry about that!
You spent some time considering the nature of self-interested freedom. Then you mentioned ‘all-inclusive’ freedom, but (I feel) you did not really explore its nature. I don’t see how you can consider how to implement such freedom before you have figured out what it really is? So I’d like to consider its nature, and what is currently blocking it. Does that make sense?
But lets start with politics… I have to say I disagree that politics has much impact these days. Nothing ever seems to change! Which is why I suggest we look at things a bit differently. It seems real change has to begin not in the structures that are set up to govern community, but in the people who live in community. If only people did live in community! But mostly they do the very minimum necessary to be a ‘good citizen’, particularly in the developed world. In the third world it is different of course, because survival is more dependent on it. So, for me, the problem is how to get people to open up, to get them to *want* to live together, as part of each other’s life. Heart to heart, through thick and thin, not just when it is convenient or profitable! THAT is the root of all-inclusive freedom. Tinkering around with political ideas really does nothing to bring that about, because the dysfunction is pathological and goes sooo deep. Noone in the political world wants to talk about this, partly because the source is deeply repressed, partly for fear of appearing a lunatic! Everyone seems to say “heck, that’s just human nature”. So the hopeful tinkering continues, as it has done for centuries, and nothing really changes.
Once people understand the necessity for true community then certain things change on their own – inequality is no longer tolerated, because it is obviously an insult to community. But you can’t say in advance exactly how inequality will be overcome – that is a matter for people to approach themselves, within their communities, because the circumstances will always be different. People want and need different things, and money is not necessarily one of them! That’s another reason I do not subscribe to ideas like the ‘Equal Money’ system, because it’s like putting the cart before the horse. When people become a true community they may indeed choose something like that, or they may not. But that is not my business, and nor is it relevant right now. The fact is unless people change on the inside, any change on the outside is meaningless. Besides, the external conditions, for most of us in the developed world, are not much of an issue. For us, as I’ve said, the real problem is internal i.e. psychological. And we *do not* want to properly acknowledge that! So I’m asking why we should spend any time thinking about the external problems when the source of them all is internal?! The internal confusion, distrust, isolation, apathy, and the unrelenting self-interest.
This leads to the points on ‘being’ and ‘who I am’. We don’t feel what others feel, or experience what they experience, because we are not really paying attention. So we miss the subtle cues that reveal our collective ‘being’. Our being is essentially whole and undivided – collective, and not individual. A mother knows this in relationship with her child. Animals know it. Most of us have forgotten. The point is that the subjective sense of ‘being’ is the same everywhere – we know it when we allow ourself to be ‘in it’ as it were. It is perfectly possible to be alongside another being without any sense of separation, and I’m sure you’ve had that experience. You become aware of separation only when you start thinking about it, which is when you remember your ‘self’ as an object. It is in the nature of thought to divide and separate and distinguish, and to inflate its own significance.
*This* is why certain spiritual people tell you to remain with what you are, instead of always looking to move towards something ‘better’. If you leave yourself alone you discover your non-separate kinship with reality. You are then open to an easy intuitive understanding of other beings, and ‘freedom’ is a natural consequence. It does not involve ‘effort’ or the development of a habit. But almost everyone sees themselves as this unsatisfactory object, a separate self that has to be worked on. This is stressful, hugely distracting, and leads to the blocks that prevent true perception and *robs* you of the energy needed for clear action. And what could be more ‘self-interested’?! Spiritual folk question this approach, not because they want you to be lazy and self-satisfied, but because it is quite clear that the thing you take yourself to be is not who you actually are. If you stay with yourself for a while, it is possible to see that. And then that original more intuitive, and self-honest, kind of ‘being’ is remembered.
I derive the definition of freedom from what I find common sense, like it’s obvious that freedom is real only where it’s equally shared. Because if it’s not, then it’s not freedom because some are enslaved so that other are free. So I’m defining freedom according to the principles of equality as well as oneness, cause I treat everything as ‘one body’ – and I can see that through that issues can be in fact solved. You’ve asked what is blocking it also, and that’s what I was writing this post about — it’s who we are, meaning what we accept and allow ourselves to be, point-by-point, moment-by-moment in our lives. If we only act out of fear and self-interest, cutting ourselves from everything and everyone, there will, and there are consequences. They might seem to ‘dissipate’ because we don’t see them directly (mostly because the system is setup in such a way that others suffer the consequences of our egocentric actions) but that is pretty much what constitutes everything in this world, from the smallest to the biggest — our acceptences and allowances. Not what we ‘think’ we’re doing, but what we’re actually doing or not doing, and what do we accept and allow within that.
In regard to what you said about politics, there’s a lot I could agree to what you written there. But it’s important to realize that in how the system is setup, politics are the ONLY way to change things. Other would be for all people to agree to a one solution as a collective and start applying it (totally disempowering the politicians, because it’s the people that accept such a way of governance) — but I mean for people to just unite together and to move as one, is something that I wouldn’t be hoping for happening soon. So politics is the only alternative. And I say that it’s important, because people won’t just change their nature together. People require to be supported, and then there is a chance. Currently the system is setup in such a way that the definition of freedom that I’ve debunked is the one that brings profit, and all inclusive freedom brings loss of profit. So anyone can calculate that in the short run it’s better to be concentrated on self only, and ignore the rest. So the change in people’s approach won’t happen if they aren’t supported with a system, where that could actually thrive — currently caring for others = wasting/risking your money and your own financial stability, because you never know where you might need the money — and you know that there might be no one that will help you in such a crisis and you might end up as a begger on the street.
“The fact is unless people change on the inside, any change on the outside is meaningless. ”
For me –both must go together. As one without the other won’t last, and is in fact a sign that the change is not yet real/lived in fact.
In terms of what you’ve written about communities, and what they should decide being the group decision. Yeah sure, I agree to the point, that it’s a real democracy that should be happening, but I add one important point of agreement/direction that must be considered in the group decision — that it’s what is best for all, that it considers all life. In considering that principle/guideline the group decisions won’t create more separation, fear, and all kinds of pathologies. That is what we always lacked in societies and groups — a principle/guideline that would make everyone equal to question the integrity of what is being done by the group. Even a child can often see what is not best for all — but people in authority often hide behind their authority creating all kinds of smoke and mirror games, about why what they do is right. While it’s so freaking simple — what’s best for all, is what’s best for each individual being as well, but simply in consideration of all other beings. That’s something most should agree — at least those that don’t want to have something in expense of another.
Now to the point of separation that you’ve described. We are separated, that is what is in reflected by the very fact that we are unaware of other beings existence. We only know that through observation and information. This shows how much separation in fact is existent. We cannot and we are not one at the moment, and to get to that is a long road ahead. Currently there’s no oneness and there’s no equality between beings. The in fact oneness and equality is reflected in the very principles of a consequential space-time reality here on earth. Have a look, we influence each other consequentially, and we’re locked in time and space — all equally, all together, and all as one on a one body of a planet that we call earth. All things, animals, plant and human alike. Now the thing is that it’s entierly up to us if we’re gonna make it a heaven or hell for each other. I vote for to rather try the heaven thing, cause it’s possible if we understand that the very principle of this consequential existence is oneness and equality — which means that if we would live in fact this principle in our everyday lives, both changing internally and externally having a system that support this – we’re able to use this principle to create something where all could thrive — instead of what we have currently, meaning where every person is blindly harming beings around them without ever understanding or considering what will be the consequences of that.
“If you stay with yourself for a while, it is possible to see that. And then that original more intuitive, and self-honest, kind of ‘being’ is remembered.”
The answer is and always was in ‘who we are’ as how we live and how we influence one another – thus both internal and external change. Because for instance if we get angry because of something, and we’ll suppress it — it will manifest somewhere else in our lives and influence others — where for instance one will in a moment get angry at someone for no reason and start being abusive. That is why it’s not to easy to change because you have to deal with yourself internally, and externally, because others are also yourself. If you transfer anger to another, they will react to it, and will for instance do the same thing to another being. And so it will continue, transfer and cycle from person to person (that’s where oneness and equality currently in fact applies).
I personally use self-forgiveness and writing to deal with my own crap, and it works quite well as support. I still have to move myself though to deal with shit that have been habits. The crappy thing is — that most people don’t and even won’t have time to just stay with themselves, and start to look at who they are and how they are. For most there’s no time to just sit with themselves for a while and start looking within — just like. That is also why I stand for a political solution — most people won’t do anything with themselves in this regard, until they have more free time. And it’s hard to blame them for that. As most people just work and do their chores and when then have time for themselves they enjoy that they have time for themselves — then repeat the cycle over, and over, and over again — till death. Totally disregarding themselves in the process, and also disregarding others, because to give something you must have/gift it to yourself first.
Cheers