freedom - definition

[lifeofbrian]

Add your ideas re: freedom and what it is exactly, please.

[lifeofbrian]

I'll throw some ideas out there then:

----

"I am entitled to my privacy deciding it is my business and my business alone what I do and where I go and when."

"Hey, read my blog, where I want attention for telling you what I do and where I go and when."

----

"I am not paying taxes to the Iluminatwits cos I'm smarter than that."

"I lost my job and you owe me money since I am a prisoner in your system."

----

Freedom sounds a lot like double standards.

What is it really?

[redhead]

Freedom is to do what you want WITHOUT harming anybody else

[lifeofbrian]

Freedom is to do what you want WITHOUT harming anybody else

Makes sense. So, freedom within limits. I take it you mean physically?

What about the surveillance society then?

We get into a hissyfit when we realise we are tracked 24/7 and assumed guilty until proven innocent, but we (sic) still want our allotted fifteen minutes of fame even though it feeds into the surveillance system?

Can we, the people of this planet, make our minds up?

Fame, or privacy, can we have both?

[intruder]

crystals in the molecular kingdom, have what is known as complete symmetry: they comprise molecules in rows, columns, and layers monotonously and indefinitely repeated; three axes of symmetry and NO freedom.

Plants exhibit their ONE degree of freedom by growing vertically. The top of the plant differs from the roots, but right and left are similar, front and back are similar. Known as radial or cylindrical symmetry; 2 axes of symmetry.

Animals differ front and rear, and also top and bottom, but are similar right and left. This is bilateral symmetry; 1 axis of symmetry.

Note that the greatest symmetry (three axes) occurs with molecules (the most constrained) the least with animals, suggesting a correlation of symmetry with constraint.

We may say of crystals that they have no freedom (their ability to grow) and animals have two degrees of freedom (their ability to move about two-dimensionally on the surface of the earth)

Light is certainly the most completely free form of existence (LET THERE BE LIGHT!!) there is: a photon released at a certain point could be anywhere within a radius of 186,000 miles a second later. In addition, we can again point out that since observation annihilates the photon, it cannot be predicted.

Animals and plants interchange position and energy in respect to which is free and constrained. The animal is free to move about but unable to create its own energy, while the plant is fixed in position but able to synthesize energy from sunlight.


I'm not finished!
but I gotta' go again.
:(

[bigus_dickus]

it can't be defined, it is always relative.

it is not to be able to do what you want, with or without harming others.

it is not to let yourself blindly obey your desires.

it is not to think or believe that you are free.

it is not the absence of care (of what other people do).

it is not being able to express your thoughts and feelings (as if you are not able by nature to do this).

Plato said: "excessive freedom leads to depressive slavery"

the only absolute and true freedom there can be, is unconditional Love. thus you are "free" (approximately) when you are able to discipline yourself.

[lifeofbrian]

Nice one, intruder. Pop in again and expand on humans (some say: light trapped in matter) if you find the time.

[lifeofbrian]

[...]

thus you are "free" (approximately) when you are able to discipline yourself.

Brilliant, b_d.

Restrictions (discipline) giving room to limited freedom / freedom with responsibility?

[lifeofbrian]

Can freedom = open and honest communication?

Lies, secrets, intrigues by a few = action behind the scenes = no full flow of information to the many = limited choices = control of the many by the few?

[bigus_dickus]

Brilliant, b_d.

Restrictions (discipline) giving room to limited freedom / freedom with responsibility?

as Plato says, freedom (ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΙΑ), means "achieving (coming of) divine limits" (ΕΛΕΥΣΙΣ ΘΕΙΩΝ ΟΡΙΩΝ).

if we want to think of an absolute free being, this being is what we call God.

or else, it is defined only in terms (or degrees) of limitation, or slavery:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=free&x=0&y=0

Socrates, on the Soul:
LiveLeak.com - Socrates on the Soul (Second Edition)

[lifeofbrian]

as Plato says, freedom (ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΙΑ), means "achieving (coming of) divine limits" (ΕΛΕΥΣΙΣ ΘΕΙΩΝ ΟΡΙΩΝ).

if we want to think of an absolute free being, this being is what we call God.

or else, it is defined only in terms (or degrees) of limitation, or slavery:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=free&x=0&y=0

Socrates, on the Soul:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=43f_1203942716

Very much appreciated, mate.

However, back to our little cage here on planet Earth, where we have the freedom to ponder the size and shape of our cage - how can we tell? - are we simply lazy brats no longer interested in life, the universe, and everything, since we get into silly fights over which chessgame currently playing on the political scene is more important than the other, rather than trying to get to the core of our problem:

There might only be us, and that thought scares the shit out of us?

[bigus_dickus]

Very much appreciated, mate.

However, back to our little cage here on planet Earth, where we have the freedom to ponder the size and shape of our cage - how can we tell? - are we simply lazy brats no longer interested in life, the universe, and everything, since we get into silly fights over which chessgame currently playing on the political scene is more important than the other, rather than trying to get to the core of our problem:

There might only be us, and that thought scares the shit out of us?

our problem is ignorance.. because if we weren't ignorant, wouldn't we be able to be free and not wonder what freedom is, if it exists at all?

having a mind which functions with reason, we tend to desire to know everything. but since we can't know everything using our minds, because that's not what our minds are capable of, or made of, we feel that we are ignorant, powerless and vulnerable and that's what scares us.

that's why we counterattack this with faith. we all have faith whether we want to admit it or not. had we not been ignorant, the idea of faith would have never existed.

faith (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faith)
c.1250, "duty of fulfilling one's trust," from O.Fr. feid, from L. fides "trust, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. pistis; see bid (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bid)). For sense evolution, see belief (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=belief). Theological sense is from 1382; religions called faiths since c.1300. Faith-healer is from 1885.

[intruder]

Nice one, intruder. Pop in again and expand on humans (some say: light trapped in matter) if you find the time.

the example of a "correlation between symmetry and constraint" appears to have a correlation in the affairs of humans. ONE world, ONE govt., ONE chip, ONE police force etc. This is a paradox that I'm unable to resolve at the moment. "I hope one day you'll join us, and the world will live as one..."

Imagine....
the imagination is free too.

[lifeofbrian]

our problem is ignorance.. because if we weren't ignorant, wouldn't we be able to be free and not wonder what freedom is, if it exists at all?

having a mind which functions with reason, we tend to desire to know everything. but since we can't know everything using our minds, because that's not what our minds are capable of, or made of, we feel that we are ignorant, powerless and vulnerable and that's what scares us.

that's why we counterattack this with faith. we all have faith whether we want to admit it or not. had we not been ignorant, the idea of faith would have never existed.

faith (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faith)
c.1250, "duty of fulfilling one's trust," from O.Fr. feid, from L. fides "trust, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. pistis; see bid (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bid)). For sense evolution, see belief (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=belief). Theological sense is from 1382; religions called faiths since c.1300. Faith-healer is from 1885.

we feel that we are ignorant, powerless and vulnerable and that's what scares us.

Touché :)


that's why we counterattack this with faith. we all have faith whether we want to admit it or not

Where do you reckon faith came from?

[amethyst]

Freedom is:

Knowing, and being known.....and you are cool with it.

[lifeofbrian]

the example of a "correlation between symmetry and constraint" appears to have a correlation in the affairs of humans. ONE world, ONE govt., ONE chip, ONE police force etc. This is a paradox that I'm unable to resolve at the moment. "I hope one day you'll join us, and the world will live as one..."

Imagine....
the imagination is free too.

Yes, we hear this all the time, that one day, we'll all be on the same page and living in harmony, as one.

Only problem is, "you" and "I" will no longer be around then. There will be only "Source", one mind/love/"I". You and I will have ceased to exist.

How many are willing to sacrifice their individuality I wonder? Give up their fights and their beliefs and just lean back and trust that whatever happens happen?

Maybe this is why many turn away from the idea of some Dad eating his children (Greek mythology) as in returning to the Source?

I reckon we are all control freaks/gate keepers. I reckon freedom is not needing to know what happens next, tomorrow, 2012.

I wouldn't call it faith-in-it-working-out-alright though, since I am not anticipating some Big Daddy hauling me up and away from here, but freedom:

Freedom to live and experience this place, without the need to know what is coming next.

[intruder]

"which seems more likely - that the less derives from the more, or that the more derives from the less? Until recently, everybody opted for the first possibility, for how could something come from nothing? A shadow is diminished light, not diminished darkness.

The problem is that science seems to challenge our intuitions on this point, for it shows dead matter coming first, followed by plants, then animals, and finally rational intelligence. This disparity has created a deep fissure in our collective consciousness, for where we came from bears powerfully on our estimates of who we are.

"everything we know about nature", the physicist Henry Stapp writes, "is in accord with the idea that the fundamental process of nature lies outside space-time." This makes that process metaphysical by including the physical while also being beyond and before it.

Consider the steps by which the matrices of space-time proceed from nature's
fundamental process - steps that begin with photons (that are not imprisoned in space and time) which give rise to nuclear particles (subject to time but not space) and then atoms (which are subject to the constraint of space but not time, insofar as the timing with which atoms release particles is unpredictable) and finally molecules which (because they cannot absorb and release energy as atoms can) have no freedom whatsoever. It appears that the corporeal world comes into existence through a succession of increasing strictures on freedom.

Thus understood, determinism is not the defeat of consciousness but instead its prerequisite. Perhaps this outline of science parallels the "arc" of myths and religion in their hero stories of gods who fall to rise again."
-Huston Smith

and isn't this what Easter is all about?

[intruder]

Yes, we hear this all the time, that one day, we'll all be on the same page and living in harmony, as one.

Only problem is, "you" and "I" will no longer be around then. There will be only "Source", one mind/love/"I". You and I will have ceased to exist.

How many are willing to sacrifice their individuality I wonder? Give up their fights and their beliefs and just lean back and trust that whatever happens happen?

Maybe this is why many turn away from the idea of some Dad eating his children (Greek mythology) as in returning to the Source?

I reckon we are all control freaks/gate keepers. I reckon freedom is not needing to know what happens next, tomorrow, 2012.



I wouldn't call it faith-in-it-working-out-alright though, since I am not anticipating some Big Daddy hauling me up and away from here, but freedom:

Freedom to live and experience this place, without the need to know what is coming next.

this is a great thread!!!!!

[lifeofbrian]

Freedom is:

Knowing, and being known.....and you are cool with it.

No... that's fame. ;)

[lifeofbrian]

"which seems more likely - that the less derives from the more, or that the more derives from the less? Until recently, everybody opted for the first possibility, for how could something come from nothing? A shadow is diminished light, not diminished darkness.

The problem is that science seems to challenge our intuitions on this point, for it shows dead matter coming first, followed by plants, then animals, and finally rational intelligence. This disparity has created a deep fissure in our collective consciousness, for where we came from bears powerfully on our estimates of who we are.

"everything we know about nature", the physicist Henry Stapp writes, "is in accord with the idea that the fundamental process of nature lies outside space-time." This makes that process metaphysical by including the physical while also being beyond and before it.

Consider the steps by which the matrices of space-time proceed from nature's
fundamental process - steps that begin with photons (that are not imprisoned in space and time) which give rise to nuclear particles (subject to time but not space) and then atoms (which are subject to the constraint of space but not time, insofar as the timing with which atoms release particles is unpredictable) and finally molecules which (because they cannot absorb and release energy as atoms can) have no freedom whatsoever. It appears that the corporeal world comes into existence through a succession of increasing strictures on freedom.

Thus understood, determinism is not the defeat of consciousness but instead its prerequisite. Perhaps this outline of science parallels the "arc" of myths and religion in their hero stories of gods who fall to rise again."
-Huston Smith

and isn't this what Easter is all about?

Cheers man.

I wonder, what is the difference in people's minds re:

being one with "Source"/Heaven On Earth/One Love etc

and the NWO hive mind?

I "need" to know :)

PS. Is it:

People choosing to adopt one view of the world volontarily through persuation/brainwashing like baron von lotsov has been trying to inform about

vs

being chipped to believe the same thing

or

is it through following a spiritual leader desiring to unite people

Food for thought: whom are you giving your mind away to?

[bigus_dickus]

Where do you reckon faith came from?

where else.. from the same source that our fear came from: reason. or, logos

logos (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=logos)
1587, "second person of the Christian Trinity," from Gk. logos "word, speech, discourse," also "reason," from PIE base *leg- "to collect" (with derivatives meaning "to speak," on notion of "to pick out words"); used by Neo-Platonists in various metaphysical and theological senses and picked up by N.T. writers. Other Eng. formations from logos include logolatry "worship of words, unreasonable regard for words or verbal truth" (1810 in Coleridge); logomachy "fighting about words" (1569); logomania (1870); logophobia (1923); and logorrhea (1902).

logic (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=logic)
1362, "branch of philosophy that treats of forms of thinking," from O.Fr. logique, from L. (ars) logica, from Gk. logike (techne) "reasoning (art)," from fem. of logikos "pertaining to speaking or reasoning," from logos "reason, idea, word" (see logos). Meaning "logical argumentation" is from 1601. Logical attested 1500 as "pertaining to logic;" 1588 as "conformable to laws of reasoning;" 1860 as "following as a reasonable consequence."

also "logos" means "self". what does it mean to give your word and keep it? in Greece, when we say "my logos", we mean my self.

[bigus_dickus]

being one with "Source"/Heaven On Earth/One Love etc

and the NWO hive mind?

we do have one mind.. but we are all the same network. the idea of a "central authority" network is the twisted version of it, because.. think of it as the internet depending on one main server, or mainframe. the internet is all of our computers together, it is us, there is no internet without you.

[bigus_dickus]

what if there was a device which would connect all of the human minds together.. and see what happens next. do you think it would be safe?

[majicdragon]

Freedom is to do what you want WITHOUT harming anybody else


I agree. We could all be free like this.

[zero1]

Most of us don't know what true freedom is, because we've never experienced it. Life is a package deal where terms and conditions apply, and you don't remember buying the product. That being so, how can we know what freedom is? I think we can only ever know what freedom is not, and many of us know freedom is not slavery, taxation, and unhappiness brought about by evil rulers and powerless predicaments...that's definitely what freedom is not.

[lifeofbrian]

where else.. from the same source that our fear came from: reason. or, logos

logos (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=logos)
1587, "second person of the Christian Trinity," from Gk. logos "word, speech, discourse," also "reason," from PIE base *leg- "to collect" (with derivatives meaning "to speak," on notion of "to pick out words"); used by Neo-Platonists in various metaphysical and theological senses and picked up by N.T. writers. Other Eng. formations from logos include logolatry "worship of words, unreasonable regard for words or verbal truth" (1810 in Coleridge); logomachy "fighting about words" (1569); logomania (1870); logophobia (1923); and logorrhea (1902).

logic (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=logic)
1362, "branch of philosophy that treats of forms of thinking," from O.Fr. logique, from L. (ars) logica, from Gk. logike (techne) "reasoning (art)," from fem. of logikos "pertaining to speaking or reasoning," from logos "reason, idea, word" (see logos). Meaning "logical argumentation" is from 1601. Logical attested 1500 as "pertaining to logic;" 1588 as "conformable to laws of reasoning;" 1860 as "following as a reasonable consequence."

also "logos" means "self". what does it mean to give your word and keep it? in Greece, when we say "my logos", we mean my self.

Faith and fear from the same source?

Do you mean knowing and loss of knowing, or remembering and forgetting, as causes?

[Mo0n5tar]

Think what you like, believe what you like, eat what you like and do what you like, this for me is freedom.

[lifeofbrian]

we do have one mind.. but we are all the same network. the idea of a "central authority" network is the twisted version of it, because.. think of it as the internet depending on one main server, or mainframe. the internet is all of our computers together, it is us, there is no internet without you.

I reckon the internet/the one mind may have been put in place, and still exist whether I choose to plug into it or not.

Technically, being plugged in and being of the same spirit, might not be the same thing.

What would an independently thinking spirit be? A virus? A Lucifer? A true child of The Creator?

[zero1]

Think what you like, believe what you like, eat what you like and do what you like, this for me is freedom.

That is other men's definition of evil. ;)

[lifeofbrian]

what if there was a device which would connect all of the human minds together.. and see what happens next. do you think it would be safe?

I think we would all see what insanity looks like.

We have destroyed ourselves with all the criticism and the pressure to perform, conform, and please.

I think we could never handle seeing it (a lot of the suffering) was us, all along.

We are all insane.

Very few of us know how to listen and accept the freshness of original thoughts emanating from those of us still not corrupted by propaganda.

I have to remind myself daily to not assume I know-it-all.

Feel free to tell me off and clarify things to me; I have read too many books in my time to find my own way back to simplicity and clarity.

But I find that nature, the animals I care for and simple daily tasks help.

[lifeofbrian]

Most of us don't know what true freedom is, because we've never experienced it. Life is a package deal where terms and conditions apply, and you don't remember buying the product. That being so, how can we know what freedom is? I think we can only ever know what freedom is not, and many of us know freedom is not slavery, taxation, and unhappiness brought about by evil rulers and powerless predicaments...that's definitely what freedom is not.

Thank you.

Some claim we know though, from before we came here.

There, we knew freedom. That is why we know when we don't have it, here.

[lizzy]

Most of us don't know what true freedom is, because we've never experienced it. Life is a package deal where terms and conditions apply, and you don't remember buying the product. That being so, how can we know what freedom is? I think we can only ever know what freedom is not, and many of us know freedom is not slavery, taxation, and unhappiness brought about by evil rulers and powerless predicaments...that's definitely what freedom is not.


This is the first post I can relate to.:)

When Lennon wrote 'Imagine', he did'nt foresee the microchip and he did'nt see that the Elite pulled the strings of all sides either. If he was alive today he would be telling us the Elites' NWO Agenda and MANY would be listening. Which is why he was assisinated.

[Mo0n5tar]

That is other men's definition of evil. ;)

Sure is...

I agree with your points though, we only really know freedom through what it is not.

But is there an inherent and shared sense/knowledge of what is right from which ideas of freedom are derived?

[lifeofbrian]

I am really grateful for all the thoughts all you kind people add to this topic, as it has been one of my most troublesome puzzles in many areas; socially, within marriage, nationally, spiritually, etc.

Keep it coming, even if we seemingly don't agree I promise you that your thoughts are very welcome.

[zero1]

Some claim we know though, from before we came here. There, we knew freedom. That is why we know when we don't have it, here.

Excellent, yes. I believe you're right. :)

[pilgrim]

Add your ideas re: freedom and what it is exactly, please.
Real freedom is freedom from birth, disease, old-age & death.
Real freedom is understanding who & what we really are.

Prabhupada's Wisdom Series:World Needs Real Freedom - YouTube

[zero1]

But is there an inherent and shared sense/knowledge of what is right from which ideas of freedom are derived?

Yes, I believe so. But paradoxically, once these ideas are caste in Law and legislated from the POV of moral absolutes, they become things that bind you ever more, limit you ever more, and make you subject to abuse from those who take the moral relativist or amoral position, since they find or make the loopholes for themselves, and thus come to rule over those who obey.

In the end, the standardization of our inherent and shared sense and knowlege of what is right kills the righteous spirit that birthed it, and makes you more and more not free. This argument is well understood at the top, and is their main argument for manifest destiny, ie. Determinism in all its modes and guises (social, political, economic etc). They're all hardcore Determinists at the very top, for how else could they regard their System of control as anything less than inevitable without conscience?

[pilgrim]

Real freedom is understanding "I am not this temporary material body'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMwgsDb1PUo&feature=PlayList&p=0C4804BB24004DC4&index=17

[lifeofbrian]

it can't be defined, it is always relative.

it is not to be able to do what you want, with or without harming others.

it is not to let yourself blindly obey your desires.

it is not to think or believe that you are free.

it is not the absence of care (of what other people do).

it is not being able to express your thoughts and feelings (as if you are not able by nature to do this).

Plato said: "excessive freedom leads to depressive slavery"

the only absolute and true freedom there can be, is unconditional Love. thus you are "free" (approximately) when you are able to discipline yourself.

I keep returning to this post as it (to me) highlights another aspect of existence;

happiness. What do we mean by that?

We've all heard that ignorance is bliss.

What if clear boundaries are bliss?

Dealing with animals I know that when they have routines, plenty of exercise, structure and rules, they exhibit no stress. A pack leader is more stressed out than a follower, within the animal world.

I would like to believe we as human beings are slightly differently wired though.

[lifeofbrian]

Real freedom is freedom from birth, disease, old-age & death.
Real freedom is understanding who & what we really are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUhdbTpuA1A

Cheers. Nirvana.

Initially I was referring to life here on Earth, assuming we all chose to be born here for a reason?

Maybe we didn't.

Earth as a classroom would be pretty pointless then and become even more intriguing.

Compared to the solar system and space as such; we do live in a very odd place.

Why, do you think, are we trying to destroy it?

[pilgrim]

I keep returning to this post as it (to me) highlights another aspect of existence;
happiness. What do we mean by that?
We've all heard that ignorance is bliss.
What if clear boundaries are bliss?
Dealing with animals I know that when they have routines, plenty of exercise, structure and rules, they exhibit no stress. A pack leader is more stressed out than a follower, within the animal world.
I would like to believe we as human beings are slightly differently wired though.

There are many forms of life on this planet. There are immovable forms such as trees and plants, and a vast array of aquatic, insect, bird, beast, and mammalian forms as well. Our human form is also one among these varied forms of life, yet even a casual observer would have to agree that we human beings are endowed with unique capacities that distinguish us from all other forms of life. What exactly are those unique capacities?

We can begin answering this question with another. What is it that distinguishes a living form from a nonliving form? The answer is consciousness, or awareness. All living forms display this symptom of consciousness to one degree or another. That is why we call them living rather than dead. Even the small microbial germ or the common houseplant show signs of consciousness, whereas our dining table and chairs do not.

It is also evident that different forms of life display different degrees and levels of consciousness, and the human form represents the highest development of consciousness that we know. It is this greater development of consciousness, then, that distinguishes the human being from all other forms of life on the planet.

But what is it about our consciousness that makes it so different from that of the insect, the bird, the beast, or even the monkey? These creatures eat and we also eat; they sleep and we also sleep; they reproduce and we reproduce; they defend themselves and so do we. That we can perform these functions with greater sophistication may be one indicator that we possess higher consciousness, but it does not fully explain our excellence above all other forms of life.

A more satisfactory explanation is found in our ability to question our existence, reflect upon our selves, and inquire into our own nature and the nature of God. We can create languages, ponder the meaning of life, and puzzle in wonderment over the nighttime sky. Such an endowment is not present in any other form of life.

The Vedas (ancient books of spiritual knowledge) therefore advise that in this human form of life we should be inquisitive to know who we are, what the universe is, what God is, and what the relationship is between ourselves, the universe, and God. We should inquire about the solution to the ultimate problems of life, namely birth, death, old age, and disease. Such questions cannot be asked by the cats and dogs, but they must arise in the heart of a real human being who desires real freedom.

[amar7]

That everyone has the right to say what he/she wants with no disadvantages and the right to do what the guy wants without harming another person

theres a saying i like about that subject: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

[lifeofbrian]

That everyone has the right to say what he/she wants with no disadvantages and the right to do what the guy wants without harming another person

theres a saying i like about that subject: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Who is to judge what is or isn't harmful to another? No feel-good quote can solve that very delicate dilemma, as that is where we are at in the present moment.

Your buddy might feel his freedom depends on calling me ignorant, and I might feel that is causing me pain; i.e. it harms me and my future ability to function (if I was a delicate flower).

See?

We need to draw the line at some point and cease to take everything so very personally. Perhaps the internet has screwed up a few generations; by the fact that some people seem to think that machines are "God", and that anyone communicating through "God"/puter is more real than Mum and Dad and Friends and Siblings. (Because they are all so boring. Because they are so tediously real.)

NWO is here for those depending on machines telling them what to think, feel, and do.

Sure, say whatever you want.

Learning how to think is not "in" anyway.

Let's just follow whoever is coolest at any given time. Right?

[amar7]

good argument.. going deeper on that subject it is nearly impossible to define the word freedom.
anyway i didnt take the time to read through except the opening post. maybe this thread gone deeper on that subject. anyway..maybe i am going to read through soon and comment 2ndly

[lifeofbrian]

good argument.. going deeper on that subject it is nearly impossible to define the word freedom.
anyway i didnt take the time to read through except the opening post. maybe this thread gone deeper on that subject. anyway..maybe i am going to read through soon and comment 2ndly

No, there is an excellent way to define the word freedom, and it goes like this:

We meet.

I am me and I will not judge you.

You are you and you will not judge me.

I am of one race you hate, and I am thus afraid of you.

You hate my race and blame it for the ills your race have had to endure.

How do we find common ground?

How do we find common ground?

How do we find common ground?

How do we defend each other's right to speak the words harming us, and how to we put the swords aside?

My way: I sit down and I listen and I make jokes. My jokes are very threatening, but they are no real weapons.

They are notes from the universal soul to yourself.

[bigus_dickus]

Faith and fear from the same source?

Do you mean knowing and loss of knowing, or remembering and forgetting, as causes?

all these arise from having a mind capable to reason. so that it makes language.. so that it makes thoughts.. so that it makes beliefs that it repeats to itself and makes them its reality.

[bigus_dickus]

I reckon the internet/the one mind may have been put in place, and still exist whether I choose to plug into it or not.

Technically, being plugged in and being of the same spirit, might not be the same thing.

i didn't mean it to take it literally, but as an analogy. the internet is only a simulation as is everything we make. so, for example, a computing machine, generally known as a "computer", is a machine which simulates computational thinking. because a computer is someone who computes, be it a human or a machine. so, what does a computing machine add to the human brain? it doesn't add anything, what it does is the task of computing, so our brains can be occupied with arranging data, introducing ideas and methods and so on.

what i am saying is that the machine is not a separate self, but a part of us, an extension, or tool.

the internet is nothing but a simulation.. it is a simulation of how we work and how we are already connected and interact. it is not there to replace this, but to reinforce it. sure, the internet still exists if you 'unplug', but does it still exist if everyone 'unplugs'? what would happen to the internet if some change in the magnetic field of the earth shuts down electricity globally and only a few self powered servers work? it would instantly cease to exist, because it doesn't exist without us. similarly, this forum doesn't exist without its users. what is a forum if the only user is the admin? it is a potential forum and it becomes one when the first user registers.

so, technically, you can't unplug yourself from the spirit, because it would be like your computer deciding to unplug itself from the internet without your consent, which is impossible.

What would an independently thinking spirit be? A virus? A Lucifer? A true child of The Creator?

what would it be independent from? an independent spirit, would be alone. it would be single and there would be nothing outside it or separate from it.

[bigus_dickus]

happiness. What do we mean by that?
We've all heard that ignorance is bliss.

What if clear boundaries are bliss?

happiness, as common sense has come to define it, sort of, is to be free from worry or suffering. and since worrying and suffering are based on our beliefs, our beliefs are what make us happy or unhappy. "ignorance is bliss" is a metaphor, in other words "what you don't know can't hurt you".

but, if everyone was happy, then how would we define happiness?

Dealing with animals I know that when they have routines, plenty of exercise, structure and rules, they exhibit no stress. A pack leader is more stressed out than a follower, within the animal world.

I would like to believe we as human beings are slightly differently wired though.

stress is not something to be avoided, but something to be dealt with. it is not bad to be stressful, as long as you can deal with it effectively. not being able to deal with it, can make you permanently stressful and consequently unhappy, but if everyone has some stress or fear in their lives, it is something perfectly natural, there are always good reasons. even if you can describe your life as being full of stress or fear, there are good reasons for that too and it's up to you to discover them and change it if possible.

[amethyst]

No... that's fame. ;)

Well, what "I" meant by:

"Knowing, and being known.....and you are cool with it."........was that you can know the Spirit just as you are fully known by the Spirit.

Fame....that's another game altogether ;)

[intruder]

"TWO OTHER ISSUES OF MAJOR IMPORTANCE ARE PERTINENT HERE: THE DEFINITION OF FREEDOM AND THE DEFINITION OF THE GOOD LIFE. The first pertains to the meaning of citizenship and the second to the essence of the human being. In a society that culturally emphasizes the maximization of INDIVIDUAL SATISFACTIONS AND THE MINIMIZATION OF MORAL RESTRAINTS, civic freedom tends to be elevated into a self-validating absolute. IN OTHER WORDS, CIVIC FREEDOM IS DIVORCED FROM A NOTION OF CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY. Traditionally, since both the French and American revolutions, the notion of freedom was defined in the context of citizenship: that is, a DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WITHIN A SOCIO-POLITICAL SETTING WHICH INVOLVED SOME RESPONSIBILITIES TO THAT SETTING. HOWEVER, FOR THESE RESPONSIBILITIES TO BE VOLUNTARILY SHOULDERED GENUINE MOTIVATION IS REQUIRED, which in turn calls for an inner spirit that prompts the willingness to serve, to sacrifice, and TO EXERCISE SELF-RESTRAINT. PATRIOTIC CITIZENSHIP WAS THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE DEFINITION OF CIVIC FREEDOM WITHIN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY.

This definition today IS IN JEOPARDY. INCREASINGLY, FREEDOM IS DEFINED AS THE ACCUMULATION OF RIGHTS AND ENTITLEMENTS AS WELL AS LICENSE FOR ANY FORM OF SELF-EXPRESSION AND GRATIFICATION. THE NOTION OF OF SELF-IMPOSED OR SOCIALLY EXPECTED SERVICE TO SOCIETY HAS BECOME UNFASHIONABLE. THUS, IN EFFECT, PERSONAL FREEDOM BECOMES THE ABSENCE OF RESTRAINT EXCEPT IN CASES OF LEGALLY DEFINED THREATS TO SOMEONE ELSE'S PHYSICAL OR MATERIAL WELL-BEING.
The gradual redefinition of freedom, away from the notion of responsible civic freedom and toward the notion of LICENTIOUS PERSONAL LIBERTY, BOTH CONTRIBUTES TO AND IS REINFORCED BY ONGOING TRENDS IN THE MASS MEDIA. On the whole, the values conveyed by the media repeatedly manifest what justifiably might be called CORRUPTION AND MORAL DECADENCE."
Zbigniew Brzezinski, from "Out of Control - Global Turmoil On The Eve of the 21st Century

[farros]

freedom: choosing your own path through all the available variables of possibility. Being aware of all the variables of possibility.

[intruder]

"without some criteria of judgement that are derived from internalized standards, THE POLITICAL DANGER IS THAT SELF-GRATIFICATION IS BECOMING AN END IN ITSELF IN THE WEST AT A TIME WHEN MUCH OF THE REST OF THE WORLD IS STILL STRUGGLING WITH EXISTENTIAL NEEDS."

"a related danger arises from the economic advice that the West proffers to the newly emancipated victims of Communism. With communist utopianism discredited, some in the West have been advocating A NEW UTOPIANISM OF THEIR OWN, A PROCEDURAL UTOPIANISM THAT CHAMPIONS A PARTICULAR ECONOMIC PROCESS WITHOUT ANY REGARD FOR MORAL CONSEQUENCES."

"PERMISSIVE CORNUCOPIA CREATES THE ILLUSION THAT ONE'S LIFE IS UNDER CONTROL, THROUGH THE SELF-DECEPTIVE ASSUMPTION THAT SELF-GRATIFICATION IS THE EXERCISE OF CONTROL. IN FACT, IT CREATES A CONDITION IN WHICH THE DYNAMIC ESCALATION OF DESIRE FOR SENSUAL AND MATERIAL PLEASURE BECOMES THE DOMINANT CULTURAL REALITY. MORALLY INFUSED CHOICE BECOMES IRRELEVANT. IN THE CONTEXT OF WORLDWIDE POLITICAL AWAKENING AND THE SIMULTANEOUS REALITY OF MASSIVE SOCIO-ECONOMIC DISPARITIES, THE FOREGOING HARDLY FORESHADOWS THE EMERGENCE OF A GLOBALLY SHARED AND UNIFYING POLITICAL ETHICH."
- Zbigniew Brzezsinski, Out of Control p. 73-74

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Excellent Post Intruder, Thank You.



Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

[lemonique]

Visionary author, artist, and human rights activist Alan Clements was the first American to ordain as a Buddhist monk in Burma where he lived in meditative silence for the better part of a decade.
Then, without warning or reason, the military dictatorship ruling Burma gave him 24 hours to get out of the country. Clements disrobed as a monk and became a maverick activist working for human rights and freedom in some of the most volatile areas of the world.

301 Moved Permanently
World Dharma Online Institute : Online Video | Veoh Video Network


Lemonique