What Kind Of Freedom?

Are we really a FREE society? If freedom must include “freedom of expression”, then what could be wrong with all the "filth" that Hollywood broadcasts? Is it not our choice as citizens to either watch or not watch this "filth"? What ultimately influences Hollywood anyway? Money, which stems from viewership. It seems we, as a society, have chosen to watch this "filth". Of course this leads to questioning whether we are really free.....from our own depravity. What kind of freedom do we seek? "Freedom of expression" or "freedom from our own depravity"?

What then is or perhaps more accurately SHOULD be the ultimate ideal concerning freedom? Do we create a society predicated on "freedom of expression" (so long as these acts do not hurt others, this itself seemingly dubious in many instances) or "freedom from our own depravity" (of course this itself dependent on a consensus as to what constitutes depravity)? One seems to preclude the other in many instances.

"Freedom of expression" should theoretically leave Hollywood unhindered to broadcast whatever it so desires. But what about the seeming fact that this "filth" easily permeates and corrupts the minds of the impressionable among us, especially children and adolescents? Will somebody please think of the children! This sentiment seems to suggest we must censor material as we are essentially too weak-minded to control ourselves from sinking into the depths of our own depravity. But I think it reasonable to say that nobody is forced to watch t.v.! It is a choice!

In this sense, if one is hurt by this "filth", it is "self-caused"! And if determining "allowable expressions of freedom" are to be based on whether these expressions might lead to "self-caused" hurt, then I am afraid just about everything any of us does can cause "self-caused" hurt and lead others into "self-caused" hurt as well! For all I know, my eating a jelly donut in a coffee shop may, apart from my own "self-caused" hurt, cause one who is stricken with obesity or severe gluten intolerance to imbibe in a batch of them and hence engage in "self-caused" hurt just the same! Is this my fault? I think not.

Then I think it no more credible to claim that Hollywood is anymore at fault for what we choose to view. We must take ownership of our own depravity and not blame others! In any case, where must we draw the line between what should be allowed and what should not given that anything allowed can potentially cause "self-caused" hurt?

How should we resolve this freedom "dilemma"? The ideal of freedom seems predicated on how one defines freedom. "Freedom to act as we wish" or "freedom to avoid our own depravity"? It seems to me that many societies "we" label oppressive are simply seeking freedom based on the notion of "avoiding their own depravity". For if many practices thought to be destructive to society are banned simply as a means to maintain a more moral society (of course banning immoral behavior does not make a society moral, it simply prohibits their immoral tendencies which would otherwise likely manifest), how can this be oppressive? It is simply "freeing" the society of its inherent depravity. This is seen as freedom to some, but oppression to others!

Of course few view this issue with a strict either/or perspective. Most arbitrarily determine what must be allowed for the sake of being "free to act as we may" versus what must not be allowed under any circumstances because of its ill-effects on the morality and well-being of society. This arbitrariness is apparent in our society as it pertains to how we view, for instance, illegal drugs and food.

Many believe controlled substances are prohibited for the sake of protecting society from its ill effects. This could be the case but my own suspicion is that the government is reluctant to legalize currently illegal substances unless or until it can figure a way to control and hence TAX them. If this is not the case, perhaps these substances are illegal for the aforementioned reason: they cause undue harm to society. If so, what about the food industry?

What with the health-care issue plaguing our society, can not a reasonable argument be made to control the way our society feeds itself? How much of our precious health care resources are utilized to mitigate the effects of poor health caused by poor diet? If we prohibit certain drugs because of their ill effects on society, why not use this same reasoning to ban all junk foods and perhaps even FORCE every citizen to eat a ration of raw spinach and kale at every meal? How much might health care expenditures decrease?

Once again, do we as a society seek "freedom of expression" (which commonly leads to enslavement to something else) or "freedom from our own depravity" (which keeps depravity at bay only through suppression or force)? It seems both options, as they pertain to freedom, leave something to be desired.

Is there even such a thing as freedom? Or is it one of the many seeming paradoxes we must cope with on this godforsaken mud-ball we call Earth?

The Internet: A Blessing Or A Curse?

Personalized internet filters are a great way to provide only the content each individual prefers. This seems very convenient and fairly innocuous concerning somebody's favorite types of movies and music. But what about tailoring an individual's news sources (most of which today is merely opinion and rhetoric) only to those that are preferred? What is bound to stem from this?

People become so identified with their chosen perspectives which only further reinforces the polarity of today's society. How then are we ever to settle life's most pressing issues?

In this regard, though we may exercise our freedom by listening only to those "news" sources that appeal to us, what does this systematically lead to? Enslavement to very narrow-minded perspectives. In this case, our freedom to listen to preferred news sources becomes a paradox in itself: ironically it leads to enslavement.

An interesting corollary to this is that one's perception of reality seems to become more “real” than reality itself, in turn exacerbating the already existing polarity causing more resentment, more hatred, more suspicion and other such destructive thoughts.

Where Does Oppression End And Freedom Begin?

What does it mean to be “free”? To be “free” from oppression perhaps? Freedom is often touted as being the most absolute of ideals, at least according to “free” societies. If one is oppressed but unaware of this, is he still oppressed and ultimately “imprisoned”?

In other words, is freedom an intrinsic ideal or is lack of freedom wrong or evil only when it is recognized by the oppressed? If oppression is only so if recognized as such, perhaps we should not be so quick to judge others as being oppressed if they do not know it.

On the other hand, I suspect many will claim freedom is an intrinsic ideal and therefore lack of freedom need not be recognized by the oppressed to be wrong or evil. But in this case, how would anybody know he himself is not one of the oppressed and therefore a “prisoner” himself?

For example, many seem so fated to follow a certain path in life only because they follow the path of least resistance or the path that simply "follows the herd". Or how about many who simply acquiesce to the “demands” of society to determine what path should be followed? Might this explain why job satisfaction seems so lacking even during prosperous times? The young and impressionable seem so apt to follow societal norms when a careful analysis of themselves just might reveal this to be unwise and lead to depression because it prevents them from being who they genuinely are.

Might the world be better off if people were not controlled by this norm and were thus able to just "be themselves”? What about those of us with seemingly beyond instinctive tendencies to be prejudicial and judgmental? Might childhood indoctrination be responsible for this and thus itself be a form of oppression? 

Many will be angry at this because much of this indoctrination involves long-held and cherished beliefs. But I am not against beliefs themselves, only the usage of them to indoctrinate the very impressionable among us, especially children, as this can likely cause “oppression” later in life.

If this is so, maybe we should become free ourselves before worrying about freeing others simply to follow our “superior” version of oppression, which we are no doubt unaware of.

How About Illegalizing Indoctrination?

Where does much of society's conflict and strife seem to originate? Perhaps indoctrination explains much of it, most notably among its naive "little ones". For children will pretty much believe anything they are told to believe (sadly, many of us will too). If they are told in the crib that certain races or cultures are inherently evil or inferior or that others with divergent beliefs or cultural practices are wrong or weird, they will have little gumption not to believe it.

Much of this indoctrination will sow ill feelings in the years to come, creating conflict which would otherwise be absent. Should "we"* forcefully prevent the kind of indoctrination that leads to terrorism, this being perhaps the worst of its many ill faces? Certainly it can then be argued that this would be an affront to the basic freedom of allowing a person to "believe whatever he wants to believe". However, the ill consequence of "protecting" this freedom is that it seems to create or at least magnify wars and other such conflicts thus providing the ultimate trigger to kill and maim.

What is the imperative? To provide the freedom of allowing a person to "believe whatever he wants" knowing full well its negative consequences or simply banning the kind of indoctrination that creates such violent division in the first place?

*"We" is highlighted to differentiate its many faces. Ask "we" in Iran or North Korea or Afghanistan or Iraq or Papua New Guinea or Scandinavia or France or wherever else and "we" will have many divergent goals and ideals. So the relevant question might be, "whose indoctrination should be censored?" It seems wars and violence are predicated not necessarily on clear right/wrong dichotomies but on the simple principle that peoples' opposing views and preferences create contradictions and hence conflict when "forced" to live side by side. At this point, "creating" enemies out of "others" (herein enters the purported right/wrong dichotomy into the conflict, thus giving the "good" guy moral justification for it) is obligatory when it becomes apparent that any attempt to "intertwine" these contradictions is destined to fail.** And so ensues tension which manifests itself as at best simple conflict and disagreement, at worst war. Much like the AIDS virus being viewed as "bad" from our perspective, it is only "bad" because the both of us cannot peacefully coexist. But ask yourself this: in the grand scheme of things, do you really think there is anything particularly "bad" about the AIDS virus in itself? Decidedly not! It is just trying to make its way about the world like the rest of us! But it causes US harm so we think it fair to label IT "bad" and believe this to be an objective judgment. But of course it is anything but objective! Once again, as per my hypothetical idea of censoring certain types of indoctrination, which types then? Perhaps those with uncontested control of the world should make this decision for everybody else, as has always been the case. But these days, I don't know? Who might this be?

**This is a rather silly argument to illustrate my point. I ask you to think more deeply than seeing this only as an argument between 2 young boys fighting over a most trivial matter. As such, project the following parable onto almost any argument and I believe there is relevance: I have never met anybody that believes colors to be intrinsically "good" or "bad". Imagine 2 brothers are going to share a Nintendo DS for Christmas. Peter likes blue but Sam likes red. Each is so compelled to get the device in his chosen color that it becomes an obsession. As a result, they become so identified with their chosen colors that they actually convince themselves their favorite colors are "good" in turn making other colors antithetical to "good" and hence "bad". If you're not with me you're against me! It's that vexatious war mindset so commonly used to justify conflict in the first place***. Since the other brother wants a "bad" color, he is "bad" and thus an enemy. Once again, the purported right/wrong dichotomy creeps into the conflict because it provides moral justification. With this then, the "good" guy is justified to fight because he is "right". And which one IS the "good" guy? Why that's simply a matter of perspective.

***This "if you're not with me you're against me" dichotomy preys on human instinct with reckless abandon. Since we are social animals, we have a need (or perhaps just an irresistible instinct) to be part of clearly defined groups to give us a sense of social identity. What does this compel us to do? Choose sides. In which case people "join" either the "with" or "against" group and conflict is thus born! Note that without this "choosing of sides", there would exist no with/against dichotomy and hence conflict would be avoided altogether! It is also important to note that most of us are compelled to choose one or the other because it "seems" as if those are the only two options. Politicians, talk show hosts and war mongers, notably, love to delude us (and themselves of course) into believing there is only "with" and "against" because they are always looking to recruit people for their "sacred" cause(s). Of course if you choose "against" them, they are morally justified in criticizing you! However, this with/against dichotomy is usually untenable. Almost always "with" and "against" are simply opposite ends of a spectrum. In which case there exist many subtle combinations of "with" and "against" along this spectrum. Upon recognizing this "truth" in a given conflict, I myself choose the "middle", in effect doing my part to "strip" the conflict of its "identity". This is what politicians, talk show hosts and war mongers, among others, live for: to recruit people for their cause(s) in order to give the conflict(s) "identity".

Speculating On The Origin Of Human Sacrifice

Suppose the act of human sacrifice becomes imperative for a tribe's survival. Initially, one might imagine numbers being drawn to determine who will be sacrificed. How awful this would be! Who would want to die only because there was not enough food? Presumably nobody.

Imagine at this point, an elder of the tribe comes up with a way to mitigate the difficulty of this decision. What if a superstitious belief were contrived whereby “volunteers” would be promised a wonderful afterlife and be honored here in this world for the rest of time? Do you suppose there would now be willing volunteers wanting to be sacrificed? Most definitely.

But what about tribes that still engage in this practice even though their survival no longer necessitates it? Well, at this point, it is such an honored and revered tradition that its practice is no longer out of practicality. Rather, it is done because the tribe believes it is actually true and is a way to cherish “honor” in society!

Many feel led to stop this type of “barbaric” practice. But if this practice is banned only because it is awful and ultimately built on a lie, what other practices built completely on superstitious “lies” ought we ban? Certainly most with strong religious convictions are not sacrificing others but should we necessarily pardon their practices? Is it true to say that religious convictions never cause death and destruction? Certainly not. Then perhaps superstitious beliefs of all kinds can actually sow conflict and result in death and destruction.

At this point, if we arbitrarily seek to eliminate certain “evil” practices based on superstitious lies, where must we end this eradication effort? Who is to say which superstitious lies are harmful and which are merely innocuous? Might arbitrarily eradicating certain practices, however “awful” they may be to “us”, be an affront to another society's freedom? At what discrete point must we curtail freedoms to prevent “crimes against humanity”?

Where Lies True Salvation?

Is being forgiven by God the biggest obstacle we face in our quest for freedom and redemption? Or might being forgiven by ourselves be the even bigger obstruction? For without this, we can never forgive and forget!

Might forgetting very well be the ultimate segue to this freedom and redemption we yearn for?

Is Technology A Blessing Or A Curse?

Does technology really improve our lives? I think it is essentially an even trade-off. It seems to me that for every 10% increase in productivity due to technological advances, we as a society effectively increase the burden placed on ourselves by 10%, possibly even more. In this case, we get nowhere or possibly even surrender “progress”.

Some may disagree and point out how technology has made traveling and communicating much more efficient and, hence, has greatly contributed to productivity and happiness. But if we never had any of this stuff, we wouldn’t know what we were missing and might be just as happy, perhaps even more so. What about medical advances? Well, even if the average life span of a human, which is now about 80 years, was only 30 years because we never progressed technologically, what “better” standard would there be to compare our “mere” 30 year lifespan to? We would only ever expect to live approximately 30 years which would seem a relatively long time. Aunt Selma lived 35 years! Wow, 35 years! She must have had good genes! If we only lived 30 years, we might make better use of our more limited time anyway.

Unable to avoid digressing, I feel compelled to ask what a better use of time might mean? Spending more time educating ourselves? Spending more time with family? Spending more time away from family doing life saving volunteer work? Spending solitary time reflecting and getting to know oneself better in order to harmonize with the world more effectively? It’s all relative to each individual.

Now, it is crucial to note the difference between never having had something and having something taken away. Once we have a piece of technology, it is prohibitively difficult to part ways with it. If we try to imagine what it would be like abandoning all the “amenities” we have thus far accumulated, we will undoubtedly fail. This would likely seem very regressive and uncivilized.

The only way to experience what I am talking about is not to have had it in the first place. One might draw an analogy to this idea with the biblical story of Adam and Eve. They were instructed to keep away from the forbidden fruit lest they face negative consequences. But of course being curious and suspicious that God was trying to withhold from them knowledge in order to impede their “progress”, they capitulated to their temptation and imbibed in the forbidden fruit. Initially, they probably felt good about their rebellion. They likely felt empowered, the fruit (analogous to technology) “tasted” really good, etc. But there was a price for this new found “freedom”. They became aware of their nakedness and were ashamed.

Their reality went from one of freedom and innocence to one of feeling ashamed and regretful of the circumstances brought on by their own doing, similar to how many of us long to have the simpler lives we once had. Oh how nice it would be to go back to the days before television and video games and other such mindless “electronic entertainment” and play outside instead! Why do we tend not to? Why do we not just go back to our simpler lives? Because as I've alluded to previously, once a can of worms is opened, it is prohibitively difficult to get its lid back on.

What is my point here? Ultimately, I am saying that every decision and choice one makes in life is simply a trade-off. One will never have it "just right". We can get some of this only by giving some of that. It seems much of the time our attempts to fix circumstances cause more damage only because we do not properly account for these associated trade-offs. It is hard to believe and especially difficult to live by the overused expression the grass is always greener, or at least appears so, on the other side. In the end, it seems paramount to accept what is.