METAPHYSICS·
ANCIENT HISTORY· SOCIOPOLITICAL ISSUES· AGRICULTURE· DIRECTORIES
Freedom
|
Freedom |
|
|
Understanding Freedom ~ man's conceptual paradox (revised - 4th edition)
(4th edition - November 2006) by A.O. Kime Freedom versus the medieval mentalityThis article takes a different look at freedom and it has nothing to do with advocating human rights (per se). It is more about the historical reasons our concept of freedom evolved and how we perceive it today. While some personal freedoms still remain hostage to religious influence and age-old customs, there has also been substantial reversals... many of the gains made during the previous centuries have been lost. Because of this and since perspectives are influenced by the current situation, it is therefore seemingly apropos to utilize a bygone mentality to address the issue... one from the eighteenth century. The reasoning? The state-of-mind today can't seem to fathom freedom in the same sense as yesteryear. If it cannot be done in relation to reality, then it cannot be positioned (properly addressed). As a result, the common approaches and countermeasures to resolve the associated problems today are either weak, meek or wrong. Most are definitely unimaginative. If trying to utilize another mentality may seem unusual, it is... if it seems impossible, it isn't. Without further explanation, just consider the insane nature of the Middle Ages. If that can't be imagined, then look at the Middle East... it provides a good snapshot. At any rate, the Middle Ages were largely unable to cope with social issues whereas later mankind could... at least for awhile. The frame-of-mind of the 18th century is fitting because it was more in tune with realities. It was more down-to-earth, more able to create positive trends and defend them. It was mankind's finest hour... and for awhile, this hour lingered. Even the 19th century can claim nobleness and stands in stark contrast to the capitulatory nature of people today. Vestiges could even be found during first half of the 20th century but soon thereafter it became a world of virtual realities instead... comprised largely of pretence and hypocrisy. While one of the greatest achievements of 18th century was to separate church and state, admittedly it was no match for age-old customs of religious origin. Freedom in relative terms and its passive natureThere are many ways to describe freedom but only in relative terms. It requires a baseline for comparative purposes and it should only be absolute freedom. It is otherwise obfuscating to use tyranny as a baseline as commonly done today… and the paradox. If freedom was god-given, then the glass was full at first... if freedom was manmade, then it was empty at first. Adding to the illusion, when politicians speak of freedom today they make it sound like absolute freedom... none of them will say what a ‘free people’ really means in their speeches. In essence, it simply means their country might be freer than others... but not necessarily all others. So too, when people speak of freedoms today, since they aren't thinking in terms of subtracting but instead adding... they are unwittingly acknowledging the defeat of freedoms. It seems evident, due to its passive nature freedoms were defeated in almost every corner of the globe because, ignominiously, the eighteen century mentality wasn't maintained. Except for a few survivors, the surrender is now official and the ink dry so it is hardly a matter of surrendering more. Conversely, the ancients thought in terms of liberties they must surrender, not obtain. In other words, their basis was from the top, or absolute freedom, whereas today we think from the bottom up. However, nobody seeks or expects absolute freedom anymore since civilized society forbids it. Absolute freedom is now history, a relic from the past. Today, the ideal is middle ground. So why should freedom be considered having a passive nature? Without any natural defensive mechanisms, such as the elusiveness of light from a radiating sun, freedoms can be carted off as easily as water. Only laws can protect freedoms but that idea came too late... most personal freedoms had already been lost. They had to be re-claimed. While fighting men can re-claim liberties, and protect them... oftentimes by the time a threat is recognized, there is often little time to prepare an effective defense against an organized invader. For example, nobody is currently preparing a defense to protect their freedom to sire children. While such would seem an unthinkable need, so too was it once unthinkable that the sanctity of one's own body would be unsanctified. Insensitive as to why freedoms were relinquished?While the following couple of paragraphs might seem insensitive to some people but with frankness comes truth. After all, sometimes it is necessary to call a spade a spade. Whether we like it or not, nature established a system whereby only the strong survive, often referred to as 'the survival of the fittest'. To his credit however, man often tries to insert justice into nature’s system and it's a noble undertaking. Nonetheless, for the purpose of this article, there are some realities which shouldn't be hidden as to how they once affected, and still affect, freedom. Even though most freedoms have been soundly defeated, that apparently isn't enough. The establishment now wants to muffle the public through the patronage of political correctness. It is no more than a smokescreen for political cozenage. In ancient times, absolute freedom had its perils as can easily be imagined, especially for the smaller, weaker tribesmen. Yet there are countless reasons why one man or one group might have advantages over another. Generally speaking, for the over-sized barbarian absolute freedom was great… the bigger he was the better he liked it. Then one day, when an emissary proposed to a barbarian clan they should civilize themselves and give up their freedom for an ordered society, it surely provoked roars of laughter at first. The Huns were probably rolling on the ground in tears when the emissary departed. Thinking the dude was a comedian; some probably patted him on the head. Others may have died from laughing so hard. Returning to his village of other disadvantaged tribesmen, they soon began trying to find a way to improve their situation and decided their only hope was to out-smart the advantaged barbarians. They knew barbarians had one soft spot and that was their deeply spiritual ways. By virtue of the awesome power of nature, barbarians had an especial reverence for it and an inherent fear of the gods. So the weaker, meeker and prosaic innkeepers sat down and began inventing religions... knowing they also had to incorporate some type of retribution. They settled on hell. While it took centuries for the word to spread, one-by-one barbarians began to think twice about being nicer to folks. The idea of religions as a way to protect the weaker, the disadvantaged, soon spread across the lands and, as a result, more religions popped up. Next, for added protection, they decided to push the idea of civilization since not all barbarians were ad-hoc believers of impromptu religious tenets. Norsemen, for example, only believed in Valhalla although there were a variety of other beliefs. At any rate, the disadvantaged needed the framework for a system of laws whereby if a barbarian wasn’t good, they would be commissioned to throw him in jail. By then, of course, standing armies were commonplace. Making laws seemed an endless process however because the barbarians kept finding loopholes to do what they wanted. Today, not even God knows how many laws there are in the world. That short depiction, however crass, was surely insulting to organized religions but nonetheless it is still the reality… it was the underlying reasons which undermined freedom. Religious intervention into personal affairs and the resulting blue laws (moral laws) diluted freedoms as did efforts to become civilized. There is a difference however; civilized laws are intended, or at least were originally intended, to mete out justice whereas religious inspired laws have nothing to do with justice… in fact quite the opposite. The subjugating nature of religions and their influence with lawmakers have hamstrung liberties even to this day. America should not be called the land of the free until its blue laws are abolished. Until then, we're still living in the insane Middle Ages... also known as the medieval period (A.D. 500-1500). Cobblestones and cornerstonesMany laws are necessary however to construct the road to justice. After all, justice is the cornerstone of civilization, or should be. For justice, almost every barbarian eventually saw the light and capitulated; ceding their long-held positions. Whatever the barbarians originally agreed to however, it was to be at the expense of some freedoms, but not all. Reformation was nonetheless troubling for the understandably suspicious barbarians, those pagans of ill repute; who, in contrast to civilized society, never tried to promote their beliefs through laws and war. While apparently barbarians had no aversion to fighting, it wasn't to impose their beliefs on others. That oblique domain, and that of laws and real wars, belong exclusively to religions and civilization. The barbarians were given a bad rap. After awhile, in confirming the barbarian's suspicions, the whole matter became corrupt. Religious precepts began to be imposed and from the effects of institutional 'mission creep', the barbarians were forced to cede most remaining liberties and to conform. In all civilized lands now, politicians are still careful how they talk about freedom… they know the barbarian mentality still exists. Yet it will exist forever, it cannot be legislated away. Nonetheless, legislators try to make people feel satisfied by citing other countries to look down upon and pity. Tyrants go further... according to Hitler, the Third Reich was practically utopia… he said so, although no one knew what he was comparing it to hell. Since freedom was emasculated, we’re left to ponder a few things. We need to consider whether other universal existents are denied their natural place and whether that methodology is sound for society in the long run. But first, let’s be sure how this curiosity applies to freedom. For one thing, we know absolute freedom did in fact once exist. In fact, from the beginning of time until the day man began civilizing himself, there was total freedom. Obviously then, it was natural... yet, as we've discovered, easily swept away. It is curious, this ability to rob someone of their freedoms seems almost godlike, as if omnipotence, as if being able to threaten the air with a knife and steal its wind. And it all began about 7,000-10,000 years ago. As time passed, as the freedoms diminished, soon, like an orange, all the juice was squeezed out. Yet, surely being aware of this emasculation, we should therefore wonder why mankind still thinks of freedom in relation to having none. Further, freedom is now called an ‘ideal’ as if it never existed before. Well, it didn't exist for a thousand years… not during the medieval period. Perhaps that explains why people today tend to compare their freedoms with having none at all. For them, the medieval period is still the baseline. The paradox of freedom and freedomsIt is hard to compare this paradox however, it is unique... first, absolute freedom became unacknowledged as a natural existent, then secondly, any freedoms at all are now being deemed a privilege. No natural existent have ever been unacknowledged before. Not ever. We are made to feel lucky to have any of that which was once pervasive. It was once as pervasive as the brightness of day. Ah yes, absolute freedom, of pleasures and horrors, that which animals know. So, folks, those are the reasons people talk about freedom as if it never existed before. Further, those freedoms which do exist are now due to man’s benevolence. We can apply a new credo for freedom… 'man giveth and man taketh away'. It’s not God’s baby anymore. So for modern times, with nature sidelined, it is to wrestle with questions of justice and injustices ourselves. Of pleasures and horrors, it is man’s blend instead. Perhaps the differences in these pleasures and horrors should be further explained. Let's suppose governments stripped all the oxygen from the atmosphere, put it in oxygen tanks, and then regulated everyone's quota. As in the case with freedom, after awhile politicians would soon act like oxygen never freely existed. To have oxygen then, just like having freedom, would be a privilege. Bragging rights would be based on how much daily oxygen a country gave its citizens. This scenario would then be a horror of man but... not a natural horror. A natural horror is being attacked by a grizzly bear, being hacked to death by an axe-wielding savage or falling off a cliff. It is not, however, to be shot down in a B-52, being poisoned by toxic waste or being imprisoned for tax evasion. Everyone should learn these differences. PerspectivesTry as he may, no other natural existent except freedom has mankind been able to alter. We know for sure he’d manipulate the weather if he could. Curiously however, after having extinguished freedom, governments then try to revive it… but not completely. Purposely kept on life-support with a nurse in charge of the switches and valves, it is controllable. At least that's an official admission that freedom, at least some, cannot be dispensed with... except, the government's brand of freedom has strings attached. Since regulations imply government control over an activity those activities can't be called 'freedoms'... they are merely 'permitted activities'. They should not be referred to as freedoms. There is a reason the government wants to call them freedoms however... they want people who have never known freedom to believe it freedom. The only true freedoms are those completely untouched, unregulated and untaxed... although breathing, scratching and sleeping still might be in danger. After all, the state governments can only raise cigarette taxes so much to cover their budget deficits. If everyone quit smoking... For a greater perspective, a greater question exists... can we truthfully say mankind has moved beyond the Middle Ages? Even while the medieval mentality still lingers? While its customs still do? While its laws which regulate morals are still around? Or should technological advances and the resulting Industrial Revolution separate us from the year 1500? Surely not though, the revolutionary inventions of the chariot and crossbow never ushered in a new era. Not even gunpowder. Certainly, as long as there are blue laws, then it's still the Middle Ages. And, since it isn't dead, there cannot be an obituary. It should be instead... Middle Ages (A.D. 500 - ?) Freedom issues out of stepIt is apparent... mankind's technological stage has bounded ahead of society by centuries. The reason for this is due to wars. Most of our electronic gadgetry is a direct result. For example, we still wouldn’t have radar if it wasn’t for war, or rockets, maybe not even computers or a microwave oven. The first computer was developed in England during World War II to decrypt German messages. At a feverish pace these things were developed to keep one step ahead of the enemy. If it wasn’t for wars we’d still be hunting with bows and arrows… guns probably wouldn’t have been envisioned yet. The point is... while technology can outrun dysfunction, it can't whip it. If the ancient Greek mentality from classical times preceded us instead, it would be the one we'd adopt. Of course, the only surviving culture is the Medieval culture. No one living today has known any other. We should not forget... cultural progress means obtaining the good life, not corporate profits and plastic attitudes. It is not stamping-out rural life and citifying everyone either. Only war, it seems, prompts society to put its nose to the grindstone… which demonstrates talent exists for nobler purposes. And nobler purposes do exist. Unless there are changes, to foretell the fate of freedom for the year 2100 and beyond doesn't require Nostradamous or a psychic however... nor much imagination. In societal structures based on domination, all roads lead to Rome. Ah yes, absolute freedom… of pleasures and horrors, that which animals know. The mightiest question of all is... are the pleasures and horrors of mankind better, or worse, than those of nature? If we are to meddle in the affairs of nature, then… A.O. Kime -------------------------------------------------------------------
These incredible books by A.O. Kime are available here!
Although STD LEX is primarily metaphysical in nature, it extensively addresses human-rights issues This website and contents are explained in our Introduction >TOP >HOME |
A.O. Kime articles —AGRICULTURE
|
|
|
a conditional 'free-to-reprint' article
(see below)
