Page 27 of 27

Re: Defining Freedom

Posted: November 1st, 2017, 1:28 pm
by Synthesis
Present awareness wrote:The ability to physically move, without restraint, would be physical freedom. The ability to think without any kind of mind control, would be mental freedom. The ability to feel emotions as they arise, without suppression, would be emotional freedom. We do not have the freedom to defy laws of nature, like gravity for example, but we may live freely within those natural laws. I would define freedom as unrestricted movement, be it physical, mental, emotional or spiritual. Water is like freedom in action. Water in a river, has the freedom to flow over, under or around any object on it’s way to the lowest point. Water has the freedom to flow or be still, whatever circumstances dictate.
You speak from a ego-centric POV. If we take your site name literally, "present awareness" might suggest that the conditions under which we exist are every changing moment to moment, and therefore we must do what we must [moment to moment] without consideration of what freedom might be about. Living in the moment with full awareness supersedes any notion that freedom is an issue outside of our ego-based need to sink into the duality of that which is knowable.

Freedom does not exist any more than does all of the notions we affix names to [every damn thing].

Re: Defining Freedom

Posted: November 1st, 2017, 3:41 pm
by Present awareness
Synthesis wrote:
Present awareness wrote:The ability to physically move, without restraint, would be physical freedom. The ability to think without any kind of mind control, would be mental freedom. The ability to feel emotions as they arise, without suppression, would be emotional freedom. We do not have the freedom to defy laws of nature, like gravity for example, but we may live freely within those natural laws. I would define freedom as unrestricted movement, be it physical, mental, emotional or spiritual. Water is like freedom in action. Water in a river, has the freedom to flow over, under or around any object on it’s way to the lowest point. Water has the freedom to flow or be still, whatever circumstances dictate.
You speak from a ego-centric POV. If we take your site name literally, "present awareness" might suggest that the conditions under which we exist are every changing moment to moment, and therefore we must do what we must [moment to moment] without consideration of what freedom might be about. Living in the moment with full awareness supersedes any notion that freedom is an issue outside of our ego-based need to sink into the duality of that which is knowable.

Freedom does not exist any more than does all of the notions we affix names to [every damn thing].

I may only speak from the only POV that I have, which is my own POV. The only moment in which life may exist is the present moment. Regardless of how long you may have lived, or how long you hope to live, if you are not alive now, then you won’t be reading this statement.

I do not claim that freedom exists, I only giving a definition of what freedom may look like. All definitions, as with all human concepts, are only useful to humans as a way to make sense of things. A deer in the forest, cares nothing about our abstract thinking and gets along fine, just the same.

Re: Defining Freedom

Posted: November 1st, 2017, 4:22 pm
by Synthesis
Present awareness wrote:
The only moment in which life may exist is the present moment.
I might suggest that existence is illusory because the present moment is inaccessible [intellectually].

Re: Defining Freedom

Posted: November 1st, 2017, 4:44 pm
by Present awareness
Since everything is temporary, why not use your illusion, while it is here?

Re: Defining Freedom

Posted: November 1st, 2017, 5:00 pm
by Synthesis
Present awareness wrote:Since everything is temporary, why not use your illusion, while it is here?
Because it will lead you astray. The clearer you can perceive, the more accurate can be your response.

Re: Defining Freedom

Posted: November 11th, 2017, 10:40 pm
by Togo1
Synthesis wrote:
Present awareness wrote:Since everything is temporary, why not use your illusion, while it is here?
Because it will lead you astray. The clearer you can perceive, the more accurate can be your response.
Astray from what? If reality is an illusion, what are you being led astray from?

Re: Defining Freedom

Posted: November 12th, 2017, 12:04 am
by Sy Borg
Synthesis wrote:
Present awareness wrote:
The only moment in which life may exist is the present moment.
I might suggest that existence is illusory because the present moment is inaccessible [intellectually].
What is the word for illusion with actual consequences? Reality? :)

If reality occurs so quickly (Planck seconds) that we can only partially perceive it then they does not render our perceptions illusory, just incomplete.

Given that no life forms can survive in isolation from other life, and given that other life forms tend to compete with you and restrict your movements, we are never truly free, and if we were truly free we would not last long. It's the old "can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em" situation. The lack of respite, plus the fact that we all must kill and displace others to live, is perhaps why so many ancients believed that life on Earth was a level of Hades.

Re: Defining Freedom

Posted: November 13th, 2017, 8:22 am
by SimpleGuy
Freedom is not primarily a physical freedom but at first a mental freedom of spirit and mind. Endowed from this definition the mind itself rules all matters in basic priniciple no matter how far your physical inihibition is. Just take as an example Stephen Hawkin.

-- Updated November 13th, 2017, 12:34 pm to add the following --

Freedom is the freedom of thought and education as well as to act as an equal citizen endowed with the same rights as everyone else free in choice according to the law.

Re: Defining Freedom

Posted: December 5th, 2019, 12:31 am
by gad-fly
Going through Scott's above-titled post on March 25, 2008, together with 395 replies, is very instructive, but the task is also very daunting. The post begins by asking readers to "check out my definition of freedom: What freedom means to me".

Normally, I look for definition in the dictionary, which has freedom defined as below:
1. personal liberty, from slavery, etc.
2. liberty or deliverance from confinement, etc.
3. the quality or state of being free.
4. without something unpleasant or bad.
5. the right of unrestricted use or access.
6. autonomy, self-government, or independence.
7. the power or authority to order one's own actions.
8. the quality, esp. of the will or the individual, of being unrestrained by physical determinants, destiny, etc.
9. ease of frankness of manner, candor, etc.
10. excessive familiarity of manner; boldness.
11. ease and grace, as of movement; lack of effort.

I can see that those taking part in the discussion may find the need to override or moderate what is in the dictionary. I suggest that it is time for Scott to review his definition and present it concisely for all to share. Otherwise the effort by so many may be wasted or forgotten with the pass of time. The definition should preferably be numbered for easy reference.

Re: Defining Freedom

Posted: March 31st, 2020, 10:59 pm
by gad-fly
Scott wrote: March 25th, 2008, 4:59 pm If you have not already, check out my definition of freedom: What Freedom Means to Me

What do you think? Do you agree with my definition? Do you support 'freedom' as I have defined it?

Do you think my definition accurate represents what most people mean by 'freedom' in the political sense?

If you disagree with my definition of freedom, how would you define it?

Thanks,
Scott
No, I disagree.

"Freedom starts with a principle of self-control, also known as self-ownership. In a free society, each and every person has legal control (or "ownership") of their own body and mind."

Freedom starts with the removal of bondage. No one is completely free until every bondage is removed.

"As such, the concept of freedom refers to a certain type of political empowerment. It refers specifically to equal empowerment. In other words, a free society is one with an equal distribution of legal rights and in which each and every person has as much legal rights as possible."

There are two categories of freedom: Personal and Political. Personal freedom does not require empowerment, because it flows out naturally, in human and animals. Political freedom, better termed 'liberty', arises from social organization inhuman society. Such empowerment may not necessarily be equal, only best if can be, unless that free society is a perfect society.

"Because freedom entails political equality, freedom can only logically entail as much legal rights as compatible with the same legal rights in others. In a free society, any one person cannot have so many legal rights that all other people could not logically have the same amount of legal rights."

'Legal rights' is a different issue. if one infringes on the legal right of another, he may suffer the consequence, or no consequence. He can have the freedom to wager.

"freedom does not include the legal right to non-defensively punch other people in the face against their will because freedom includes the legal right to not be offensively punched."

Personal freedom should allow one to punch another in the face (without invitation), offensively. Legal right is exogenous restriction on freedom. not part of it.

By the way, I have not heard from Scott for some time. If he does not respond here, please help me to send him my best regards.