Freedom’s Sound; Who is Free?, Bells of Liberty

What’s This Freedom Stuff all About?

Can I do whatever I want without consequence? You know. Be completely free?

{I write this post with the Texas Governor implying the desire to be free from Washington, as well as other new-found desires for Freedom; from freedom from oppression to freedom from need. And reflecting on perhaps the final freedom some seem to be seeking; freedom from cause and effect, a freedom from Reality.}

When are you free to do, or free from what?

If I am free to do or believe in something, what does truth, reality or right and wrong have to do with Freedom?

Freedom, and especially Liberty, seem to imply that the absence of the quality exist, which is to be considered as not good. We tend to mean to be free from some certain thing or process that is presumed inhibiting. This sense of specificity of a positive to a negative, can make freedom contort to what ones interest in particular are, even to the point of opposites. Freedom then enters the existential relativity zone; where it means what I want it to.

Example; You are free to go look for food, or you are free from the need to look for food. You may be hungry because you cannot find food but are free to keep looking. You may never worry for food or hunger since you have all the money or food provision you need. Free to want in one example and freedom from want in another. Freedom is an abstract concept relative to ones own situation, and to ones degree of living in abstraction, or minds belief. You can be free to get a job or starve, while an employer may feel they should be free to use you as they will.

Speak Up?

Most of us like the abstract idea of Freedom of Speech, because we would hate to have our words and thoughts inhibited, implying some external authority decides what we can say from what we can think. However, most no-one supports the view that if you feel like being free to say; FIRE!!! in a crowded theater when there is no fire and a likelihood for panic, along with tragic consequence from that free act, most will not contend that you are free to do that without consequence.

That you have every right to do that thing if you wish, for whatever reason you like, may bring restriction upon your freedom by the exercise of it, including prison or other inhibition. Abstractions can become self contradictory in human real world behavior, for they seem to exist outside of notions of accountability and responsibility when abstraction, a symbolic ideal, is held above the consequence inherent to reality.

Once something ascends to the level of a consensus reality, it can appear true=Appearance Reality, while being more of an idea/theory/presumption than a truly real thing in and of itself. If we all “know” you must be lying about something from the incident narrative we have heard, do we really know the truth? You may actually know you are telling the true facts as you know them from experience, yet I can assume you must be lying. Pre-existing bias can make facts sift out into preordained boxes where it is assumed they belong, all while I assume I am being objective.

This relativity factor to freedom’s context, breaks it out of the abstract purity of idea. I suppose no one actually is stopping you form saying what you wish, but society may hold you accountable for the consequences (right or wrongly) if you actions causes particular harm, or may reasonably seem able to. Do you really believe you have the right to pick anyone at random off the street, to prove your freedom, and say they just killed someone and should be then stopped in any way possible?

Yet what I have just portrayed is close to being realized in the manner some opinion and political thought is expressed; that without sound objective reference to direct evidence as it relates to systemic context, we can accuse others of all manner of what we despise in the world or in culture, saying they are the cause of it and giving our preumed evidence. We are in some manner free to express our opinion, for it is not directly responsible for another actions, but we have come close to manifesting our own freedom as perhaps an others motive or desire for oppression or inhibition—-of us.


Freedom and Liberty are not always the producers of good, but we seem to understand that without their continuance, we can be certain of the bad running wild. But after saying that, it is likely that in some aspects, I do not support others definitions of freedom when I have been convinced it manifest oppression of an others will in some prominent way, especially if that others will is not producing the restriction of someone else’s same freedom.

So what? It seems most of us like freedom, especially our interpretation of it, but can dislike how it manifest in others views. Freedom is then; not the universal positive we can sometimes assume, at least we can feel it is not, seeming then to know it is not. The question comes back to each one of us; do we accept others freedom when we do not respect how freedom “lets” them behave?

Here we come face to face with otherness, and the perhaps biased perspective we might have on abstractions like Freedom; I can assume these are sacred in some way—when I seem denied them. This subjective putting of Freedom outside of a super context of responsibility and consequence, may well place it into realms of confusion and delusion.

We do not always know if our abstract idea that is seen as a negative in others, is what we assume it to be. We do not always know, with our beliefs, whether we are seeing with one eye things two dimensionally, or more fully true with two conceptual eyes, or even more fully true with many.

Individuals are not always clear regarding what is whole and true, since your and my situation, including our histories, tend to lend weight to a direction of preference. Our situations can act as a seduction focus lens to our beliefs, and what I think others are about. This seeming dichotomy can come into our sights in our organized interpretive viewing scopes; Religion, and especially politics, can present their true world views, while never truly owning up to the subjective dimension which they do inhabit.

Crippled truth can be dangerous or unhinged truth.

Instant Karma?

The Golden Rule, and the Kantian notion of The Categorical Imperative, both imply that I will not do what I would like to do at times, for so doing would violate the inclusion principle of rational consistent dialectic. If I want my speech to be free, I should likewise allow others speech to be free, or they could some day deny my own freedom. The subject is included in the objective context. I support an idea like Free Speech, not because I always like it, but because by excluding others, I open a Pandora’s Box to anyone claiming authority as censor, to themselves decide what is said. Thus eliminating Free Speech, or dismembering it, along with destroying awareness of what others are thinking.

By methods of ideological thought seduction leading to thought manipulation/control, some individuals and societal entities have intention to deny truthful and Whole Free Speech, be it by overt censorship, or by systemic/economic censorship, and sometimes relative value enticements such as so called moral values. We can believe we have Free Speech, and seem to, while possibly behind the scenes or by access inhibition, we are not in a true Free Speech Context. And with the “right” indoctrination as to why we should inhibit speech, even though it may not be a direct threat to others, society tends to sit idly by as a right such as Free Speech is in profound ways, rendered mute, being we are in effect forced not to hear.

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death.

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

Patric Henry’s speech seemed to know what Liberty meant in his context; Being treated intrinsically unfairly by an external authority, such as in slavery, imbues one with the awareness of the lack of Liberty. When you know you are functioning according to what seems reasonable local law and assumption at to your will, then someone or some other entity comes in and says effectively; forget what you know or how it appears, I am taking all your stuff unless you give it over to me when I demand. You actually owe it all to me, cause you never owned or possessed your world by the laws I hold in effect over you. My interest are preeminent.

To have my view of Liberty, if I were a British Owner of colonial America, you would need to be me, for I have my preeminent law on my side of possession. I can think your claims of Liberty and Rights are only veiled desires to apprehend what is rightfully mine. After all, The Law is on my side. These were the rules. I am right. No debate.

Liberty and Freedom are subjective, able to be manipulated by thought seduction, cultural perspective, and somewhat dependent upon what I become convinced I need independence from. Their existence as abstractions in a context of seemingly infinite interconnection and interrelationship, make them serious subjects up for debate. Yet these very subjects are routinely treated by the seduction/temptation of privilege and opportunism, as mere objects to an end that secures ones subjective place above all else. While protected behind the sometimes alleged sanctity of The Law, one persons Liberty can inflict upon others—tyranny, legally.

Truth’s Point of View?

The often ignored but ever-present inclusion principle of any super context, such as The Commons, renders the subjective an interest to the objective, because reality includes all as One. Of course I can fantasize that I need not include the universe, the environment, society or others in my calculations of thought and behavior. Ignorance knows no bounds, nor limitation on what it will claim to know.

The idea of fair or balanced speech or news is an oxymoron, if what is being pursued is The Truth. The Truth is true and not liable or dependent upon fair or balanced opinion of it. The real truth can actually be interfered with; disguised or veiled over, by attempts to make Truth a process of some preconceived ideas of balancing. I would say someone is indeed seeking to hide certain Truth, if they assume or presume to balance things overt It’s presentation. Instead, some other agenda is being foisted over the very definition of Truth, seeking to deny its reality base and instead insert interpretive lenses to bias Truth to a particular viewpoint. Fair and balanced truth or news is just as likely to be slanted and biased, only pretending to not be.

Let Freedom Ring

Proclamation on many conservative sites, also songs so titled

Martin Luther King Speech “I have a Dream”

The ringing of the bells of Freedom is a more poetic take on hope’s and dreams that can become real, if only… were true. To be true, the plea is to Let Freedom Ring. The Sound of Freedom notes an atmospheric context that seems to infuse the common air itself.

We can imagine, as if at the end of World War Two, bells ringing in Europe and America. We would know a certain threat has passed. A long nightmare has become a dream now of promise made from the hearing of bells. A duty to Freedom to prevail has become true. We would all hear the sound and know, perhaps first within our hearts; I hear Freedom’s Sound.

Metaphor can create powerful connection and insight. The abstract Freedom uniting the Allies in the War had become visceral to most citizens. We knew not what tyranny would have done to us, but what we did have, we knew we would lose. The fight for Freedom permeated ones world from top to bottom, uniting all of us in a common dream; to remain free; a Common Song.

The Things Time’s Sediment Covers

But this kind of unity of Cause can eventually be used to divide and conquer, as new and revised forms of control, self dominance and tyranny creep into being. Society as well, can find its unity of purpose becomes cloudy. Individualism, and concepts of freedom relative to the individual, can become parsed and convoluted. —I am free to do what I want and you just stay out of my way. Mind your own business. Life becomes for some, in a more real manner of speaking, just a business where it is my job to succeed and not let you stand in my way.

Someones freedom to create an enterprise and contract out to others as subjects to their will, may manifest “Free Enterprise” legality, while also creating forms of wage slavery, and anything but collectively free hierarchical mindsets. We are walking a plank between individualized concepts of freedom and collective concepts that extend to all. I can say, if I am Billionaire lets say, that I was poor and became super wealthy, so can any poor person, since I was free to. I owe society nothing for the generation of my wealth, for it was from my own effort. As if All Else played no part.

My Billionaire scenario exist in an abstracted out and subjugated to situation notion of individualism and freedom. Most “Free Market” systems reproduce this concept, contouring consensus and appearance realities continuously to suit their advantage, for they have extra access to so do their will. Everyone cannot be a Billionaire, not until all work is somehow robotic or materialism and money value itself changes its meaning.

Until then, Billionaires are banking of continuing “failures” as in situational disadvantage for massive groups of others. Also being relied upon is that the wills of others are in such a position to be contoured to surrender their will to an other to survive. The “free choice” being life or death. We exist in a kind of economic context of forced marriage. With this abstracted out consciousness that ignores The Whole of Life. While most of us try to live decently and with self respect and love in our lives, having meaningful lives does not preclude the existence of forced manipulation.

It is no surprise that the earth is in crisis, or that nearly twice the number of those who died at the 9-11-01 attacks, or 5,000 children a day die from kinds of water poisoning. Yet are we changing all the rules to a new paradigm modus operandi every day to stop the ongoing tragedy? So called free societies seem to be more bout some kinds of self serving notions of freedom, than expressions of Freedom that include all specifically.

If the big powers that be; oligarchical interest and those who pander to them, do not see the death of so many children’s lives each day, notice what happens: The news is of other issues, and not so much those issues of the poor. This is an institutionally loaded off balanced information feed to public consciousness. This institutional corruption of perspective is now considered the way it is. One will likley be labeled a “Class Warfare” advocate to bring up the situational disadvantages of most people in the world. This is how thought seduction works to control ideas in a culture to protect the big powers that be above all others.

Organized Ways To Validate Advantage

Opportunism and exploitation, though sheltered under their own abstracted concepts of freedom, can seek to keep others in bondage because of systemic based need; need of those stressed to “surrender”, and the need of those to use who are in that position to feel as they must surrender. This, while those of great advantage have both access and motive to proliferate-out their self serving forms of sculpted freedom. Oligarchies survive by these methods, in Democracy, contouring freedom to suit their need first, and society, including the individual others, as collateral interest to be managed mostly by stress and assuaging thought seductions.

Some bells of Freedom may ring as good for me, while others hear them as if the sound deposited weights upon their shoulders, for they are. Separatist concepts of freedom will seek to allow individuals to get what they can, most any way they can, while others seemingly less ambitious or ruthless, will have their lives valued as less. This is humankind’s attempts to deny the full responsibility, accountability and consequence to their actions, by pretending our consensus values are real an true values. I can be for freedom, while in the same note, intending it to serve me at the expense of others, and feel and be widely perceived as quite the success.

The Universal Bell of Freedom would not so ring.

Live Free or Die————

–official motto of the U.S. state of New Hampshire

We will be free, or else what is the point of living? But have we approached the free will and determinism conundrum that has been surfacing throughout this whole Freedom presentation?

It seems the stance for the free individual in a free country is powerful in the abstract, and while buttressed by a faith in hindsight, but when do I really know how free I am and in what ways? How dependent am I on my feelings and interest to denote what I think the Big Freedom is? Am I not free to be wrong as well? What context do I control from my mistakes, errors and misjudgements as they spiral off down the road of Life?

The Truth Will Set You Free

One way this is said in some Bibles

Politics, and to some degree religion, claim not to be wrong. The left and right may have whole different definitions of truth, cause and effect, as well as responsibility of the individual and the society, or collective interaction of individuals. Most of us follow the ideas of the culture we are from, never intending to give other notions a fair or balanced chance at convincing us of being real Truth. We are indoctrinated into a belief system. It may be said that “…and the truth shall make you free”, but what standard am I holding my definition of truth to? That will make all the difference between what is true and what is concocted.

The existential problem we have is agreeing on the meaning of things, the meaning of thoughts, the meaning of Life as ultimately what I mean to the Universe or God, if anything. We do not always know exactly what exist as Truth, for it is easy to mistake opinion for fact while interpreting facts with opinion. When am I absolutely sure that I truly am not offering opinion as real truth? Perhaps this is why the incentive has been acknowledge that somehow, presumably the Real Truth will make one free. It will do it, pave the path to Freedom, because it is Real and not otherwise invented by human idea.

That is a hard one for many reasons, some I’ve pointed out prior. When do I know something real empirically? When can I trust meaning to be automatically right? Where is this truthful path that paves the way to liberation for the self? And when can I be sure I am actually on it and not otherwise convinced by someone that this must be the True Way?

Since language itself is a collective conceptualization individualized, I cannot be sure I am thinking “straight”. Somehow I will need to have something bordering on absolute faith in something sacred to Reality; a way reality is beyond my values imposed upon It. This will vary for many of us, for in some instances, even going on a quest for an absolute Truth, or something near to it, will run up against the many human systems, some claiming Divine origin, which already claim to have the only Absolute Truth. This will seem to imply (sometimes very overtly) that to question within one of these many one and only truths, then, is a form of rejecting It. Curious. Also a convenient Thought-terminating Cliché, a tactic of mind-control.

Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose’…

—from Janis Joplin’s song “Me and Bobby McGee” by Kris Kristofferson

Is Death The Penultimate Freedom?

It is a curious question; does presumably no responsibility equate to Freedom?

Being free from earthy tethers. There are some human beings who think they have no responsibility to much of anything. It could be someone living on the street, knowing too much loss all too intimately, and living to avoid connections that need maintenance. In this case, ones survival is a full enough time job; just maintaining ones life. Others with no responsibility left to lose, might be some of the super wealthy; got all the money they ever will need, can get whatever they wish (theoretically), and again, just managing everyday life can become the big issue in their lives. Society tends to frown on the former and envy the latter.

Most ideas of Freedom come with this lack of tether to something or someone. In practical reality, between your consciousness and that world of others out there, there seems a deal to strike. It is up to you and up to us to truly define what are legitimate freedoms that benefit all. Freedoms that support institutionalized bias against some group or other kinds of people must be scrutinized for their validity; do they support a Common Truth, a true universal known, or are they rationalized toward ideological preference? We face the same issue in this as with The Golden Rule.

What Is Knowable In Common; The Key

Reality is at the heart of this matter. You and I are part of The Real, yet we know we can be mistaken. What way is there to validate Truth, or in another way of asking; When are facts or statistics, the elements of the observable world, when are these known in their largest context? Not some spacious reasoning like; It’s raining so the drought is over. We do not know this, even though rain will be likely how a drought will end. A thing is not in abstract isolation, not even Freedom, somewhere thresholds are crossed, lines known only by understanding of context.

We must be humble in this regard; I never know everything. I never know all there is to know, possibly on any one subject, let alone their interconnecting relationships to all things. I might know what we think is all there is, but where is my validation from Creation?

Humankind has developed standards for reason and what actually constituted valid logic. It is arguable whether we modern humans are any better at this determination than some of the earths distant cultures. Time and recorded history have established some characteristics for education and understanding, generally validated as correct by repetition of outcome predicted, and or conserved into culture that persist. The world of scientific invention; even the development of agriculture, comprehends some manner in which things work, seeking to replicate them toward new ends.

The key is to work toward objectivity. It is a goal. Creativity intends to move reality into a new dimension of perception. New dimensions are not necessarily true. I can say and or invent things that are not well. They will not survive the test of time. Creativity and invention do tend to require trial and error, which may lead toward improvement in an ideas viability, particularly if one is accurately judging ones strengths and weaknesses accurately in their environmental context.

Even in invention, one works toward objectivity. One works to be into truth and out of error or false notions. Creative freedom still requires a super context; some way others will know the usefulness of something coming into existence. We do not know, while discovering Creation via science, whether what we find and then use, will help or harm our lives in the long term, particularly if we reduce our awareness of consequence to action, including discovery and invention. Without an intent to overview through super context perception, we can poison the very water we drink.

If I invent a new clothespin that tends to drop things in the wind, no matter how cool I make it look, it still might fall into lack of use, because it is not true to intention–holding up clothes. Even if it is true to coolness, practical reality may have it fall by the wayside. We do test some elements of the truthfulness of things all the time. Why? We intend to live a real life.

If someone is obsessed with living a cool life, surrounded by cool things that presumably throw their cool weight around onto themselves, my dysfunctional clothespin still might be the preference of such a one. Does not validate it as a good clothespin, just useful to select individuals for their own motives. Many ideas continue in this kind of amorphous zone; valuable to some but not to others, so how true are they? I might say it is perfect and you say; No way! Freedom is not free of this very problematic outcome; that freedom is invoked when it is of particular use to someone to invoke it, and not universally.

Most every human endeavour has gone through a somewhat systematic evolution based upon trial and results. Some philosophers believe the break with absolute determinism in human consciousness occurs with forgiveness; That one’s emotion or “The Facts” prove to you someone has been bad, likely to you or society, and what do you do? You commandeer your feelings away from what seems obvious reality. You say; I know how it appears, I see what was done, but to free myself from my own chance of misjudgement and government by the negative, I forgive this person or act. An uncommon sense of freedom can be pursuant to acts of forgiveness. The one forgiving coming to know; I seem to have forgiven myself, and it seems Divine.

There is an Biblical saying in Mathew; ‘to judge not lest you yourself be judged.’ It is a very wise overview of the problematic nature of perception of others, particularly how it seems we can accuse others of what we do in a big way ourselves, but try to keep from our own consciousness. The old saying then proceeds into rationality, how useful is it to expect the ignorant to act wise, and be upset over what they seem not to understand? How qualified am I to act as judge and executioner over an other’s misjudgements? Any hypocrisy endemic to that? Forgiveness asserts ones gaze toward Higher Cause; God, and or Love and Union, over what seems to divide and sink our relationships.

Forgiveness, thought of as impractical and foolish in many instances, may be the only way out for a people who truly respect the gifts of Freedom. It seems individual freedom wil be irrelvant if collective freedom is not respected. A higher context for Freedom is essential for the individual to live honestly in a real world, as opposed to an imaginary one. Imaginary worlds can be anything one wished or beleives is true. They are “True” only inside of separation, or an alienated perception of the nature of Life and Being.

As alone or alienated as I may believe I am by all evidence, I am still connected to The Whole One Thing. If I am lost, I am lost inside worlds of my own making, for I decide what is the value in what I perceive; I can still go on to both forgive and to understand.

Humankind has no guarantee that it remains free to be, or free to be wrong indefinitely. Wrongness will become apparent, but where I believe the source of that wrongness is will make all the difference. Whether I can change my life to be in alignment with Life. Or whether I insist I, or we, or you, have broken the invisible contract with Life.

It is a determination as to what perception rules my consciousness. I can settle for defeat, bowing down to the ignorance of the world; my own and of others as victor. I can also settle for Love, for Life, and insist I work for its Cause no matter what befalls me. It may well be that the highest Freedom is in the surrender to The Truth above my own opinion. The Truth may make one free, but that freedom becomes an unbreakable union, if I insist on it.

This one thing is clear; others do not make me free. We have relatively good methods of discerning truth from falsity. The so called Key To Life will be in that lock How closely will I attend to Truth’s numbers?

The question becomes; what combination do I trust to unveil truth? For all combinations will claim to. I say this for it is evident there is the intent out there in opportunism, blind faith, and its obfuscations, not to look too closely as to the Key, and which lock we are actually opening; one based on real Truth, or something just claiming to be.

Work Makes You Free

—Nazi Slogan

Contouring freedom to the extreme, even the slaves of the Pharaoh or of the plantation owner can be told they are free. You’re free to run and I’m free to shoot you in the back. This is not only the circular thought process rendering of cults and madmen, it bobs up here and there in society’s Mainstream as well as the worlds religious and political offerings. I believe this is at times used to existentialize a consideration into an amorphously undefinable state. Then a concept can be made to apply to most anything given the right angle. Then the Real Truth may have an extra difficult time at becoming known, as if someone is inhibiting the path to Freedom—for a reason.


Freedom is seemingly once again raising its not free head, to see through the eyes of its beholder.

As an abstraction, freedom has become one of the most wide open to interpretation concepts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s