So, I’d like to see this question brought into society and ethics – is it responsible to pursue personal freedom (under the definition given by VestnikRA and affirmed by FlexPenguin)?
And to illustrate this question further, I offer that there are cases where two people persuing their personal freedom might come into conflict. Neighbors, for instance: one of whom wants a backyard garden full of songbirds and the other wants to raise cats who are free to roam the neighborhood. Totally legal, totally within normal human desires – can they compromise with each other and still be in pursuit of their personal freedom?
Ah yes, the pursuit of happiness. Do we fear happiness? I don’t know about that. When we are young, at the time in our lives when we are most free to pursue our chosen path, due to ignorance many of us do not understand what true happiness is. Those who understand early have the most success.
Fear also serves a legitimate purpose. It keeps us from touching the hot stove, because we fear getting burned. But fearfulness is something different.
And yes there are limitations to personal freedom, particularly when, due to our ignorance, our pursuit of happiness harms someone else.
[QUOTE=Asuri;19797]Fear also serves a legitimate purpose. It keeps us from touching the hot stove, because we fear getting burned.[/QUOTE]
Is it fear that keeps us from touching the hot stove, or common sense? I’ve been thinking about this subject for quite a while and think personal freedom is not simply being able to run downtown naked, or do whatever I want in my backyard. It’s being free of the fear of death. Not just physical death, but death on all levels including failure, rejection, the future, the past. By conquering fear (I’m speaking in degrees because you would need to be superhuman or mentally ill to be completely devoid of all fear), you can relish joy. We all experience joy in our lives, but for some it is a fleeting moment to be replaced by the fear of losing whatever it was that brought joy in the first place.
As humans, we have survived a long time by the harvesting of fear. The fear of community reprisal keeps us from smacking the guy on the bus who has his ipod blaring on the highest level. But, if fear was absent, would I look at the fellow with amusement and love instead? I wonder.
[QUOTE=Techne;19791]
And to illustrate this question further, I offer that there are cases where two people persuing their personal freedom might come into conflict. Neighbors, for instance: one of whom wants a backyard garden full of songbirds and the other wants to raise cats who are free to roam the neighborhood. Totally legal, totally within normal human desires – can they compromise with each other and still be in pursuit of their personal freedom?[/QUOTE]
I believe that our world is the world of abundance, where everything we may ever need exist. There is enough space in the world for any possible combinations.
A thought comes first. What happens to a person NOW is not what he really IS but what thoughts he had in the past. If he changes his thoughts, his imageries, his NOW-Reality will change too, not in a moment of course but within a certain time.
And it depends on the person only what neighbour he will have…
OK, so here’s where Socratic Dialogue comes in. This might get a bit gad-fly-ish so tell me off (PM, please) if this train of thought is not beneficial to anyone –
Does this clarification fit adequately?
You’re saying that if two people are in conflict in their personal persuits (which is how one lives in personal freedom), it’s up to the person whose goal is compromised to get new circumstances for achieving those goals. (This could be difficult OR simple to achieve.) The other person has no responsibility to assist the first whatsoever.
[QUOTE=Techne;19955]OK, so here’s where Socratic Dialogue comes in. This might get a bit gad-fly-ish so tell me off (PM, please) if this train of thought is not beneficial to anyone –
Does this clarification fit adequately?
You’re saying that if two people are in conflict in their personal persuits (which is how one lives in personal freedom), it’s up to the person whose goal is compromised to get new circumstances for achieving those goals. (This could be difficult OR simple to achieve.) The other person has no responsibility to assist the first whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
I am trying to say that surrounding us world is a mirror of our intentions and thoughts. If a person changes himself the world around him will change too.
So, there are no ethical concerns. We do not have duty to assist each other – or even to keep from infringing on each other – in the pursuit of personal freedom.
How much of the world around the changing person will change? Is there anything that is outside the reach of the one who shapes his/her ideas and thoughts?
Techne - what I believe you are saying is that one cannot pursue his or her own personal freedom if, in the course of that pursuit, it infringes upon or disturbs another person’s personal freedom. And I would agree with you.
[QUOTE=VestnikRA;19956]I am trying to say that surrounding us world is a mirror of our intentions and thoughts. If a person changes himself the world around him will change too.[/QUOTE]
so who is the president of the US? if you change your thought on who it is does that change it? Is there any pollution or starving children in your world?
thanks
Neil
I am seriously enjoying the mental exercise of this thread.
Yes, I have drawn attention to the disturbing and anarchic case of the stated definition of personal freedom. What I’m curious about is, faced with that possibility, do we accept case A: this defined freedom is, regrettably, not likely among other people (sounds like the original post), or case B: we must alter the definition of Personal Freedom to admit that I am free only when Thou are (art) also free; that human freedom thrives in relationship rather than withers due to it.
Although the metaphysical possiblity brewing, that the entire world is mutable according to one person’s thoughts and therefore the rest of us are ineffective almost to the point of being fictional, restores the possibility of the originally stated freedom: my neighbor’s ‘personal’ freedom goal will never come into conflict with the goal of the person who Wants enough (or Wants in a particularly effective way.) Brother Neil illustrates for us the rareness upon which we observe this happening – thank you.
Getting quite curious.
[QUOTE=justwannabe;19969] if you change your thought on who it is does that change it? Neil[/QUOTE]
Yes, it does, sooner or later, but only if you totaly change your attitude (which is not just a thought)
[QUOTE=Techne;19972]I am seriously enjoying the mental exercise of this thread.
Yes, I have drawn attention to the disturbing and anarchic case of the stated definition of personal freedom. What I’m curious about is, faced with that possibility, do we accept case A: this defined freedom is, regrettably, not likely among other people (sounds like the original post), or case B: we must alter the definition of Personal Freedom to admit that I am free only when Thou are (art) also free; that human freedom thrives in relationship rather than withers due to it.
Although the metaphysical possiblity brewing, that the entire world is mutable according to one person’s thoughts and therefore the rest of us are ineffective almost to the point of being fictional, restores the possibility of the originally stated freedom: my neighbor’s ‘personal’ freedom goal will never come into conflict with the goal of the person who Wants enough (or Wants in a particularly effective way.) Brother Neil illustrates for us the rareness upon which we observe this happening – thank you.
Getting quite curious.[/QUOTE]
It’s not a simple question, yes.
Here I can tell for myself only. Sometimes I feel myself totaly free, sometimes not. I feel myself free when I sometimes feel my UNITY with everything surrounding me, humans, animals, trees, birds, houses, cars, etc. So may I say that this inner feeling of UNITY with all creations makes us free?
A Feeling of Unity with all creation makes us free.
New definition of freedom, as this no longer is dependent upon pursuit of a goal that makes one’s heart happy. Ok, let’s see where this takes us.
Two questions: Are you sure freedom is as ephemeral as a feeling?
And: Is it only the creatures who feel the unity who are free, or are all creatures conferred ‘freedom’ because of one person’s feeling of unity?
I think, these two definitions don’t confront but support each other instead.
Feeling of UNITY with all creations does make my heart happy. 
Answering your question.
- I would not compare freedom and feeling.
- I can only tell for myself and my own feeling of freedom, I can not tell for others.
thanks for engaging in the conversation Vestnik
Brother Neil
Oh, ok. If we’re leaving the realm of ancient Socratic forms, I’ll leave off the questions.
My best feeling of freedom comes in conversation. And yes, that usually involves connection to others. It does not involve any particular financial means (original question); it usually does involve going deeper into the meaning and intent than I originally decided I would. It’s a freedom from the illusion and from my pre-imposed safety net.
[QUOTE=justwannabe;20002]thanks for engaging in the conversation Vestnik
Brother Neil[/QUOTE]
I knew this would be a vital question. 