What an ignorant pig the fat copper mentioned is.

TTBN take that back about the fat copper! Commissioner Cornelius is an absolute hero! He was a solicitor in the fed police, I suppose TTBN will now refer to him as a fat ambulance chaser now? Then Vicpol put him in their ranks as an Assistant Commissioner focussing on ethics. He did such a good job they gave him a APM. Then he was in the team overseeing Nicola Gobbo the Barrister selling out her clients to the coppers, ethics, not so much. Now I suppose you are going to have a shot at him for answering "I cannot remember" fifty times at the Royal Commission? The man has too many things to remember obviously even with his fat head so.
I assume now TTBN is feeling suitably chastened and will stop references to Donut eaters, fat, Stupid, arrogant and such.
Anyway Blessed are the peacemakers, the good book says so.

I wonder what it has been costing for every dick-brain who asserts his inalienable right to be a complete idiot (including the BLM protesters) ? By putting everything back, say, another week ? A billion dollars ? Plus another thousand businesses gone to the wall ?

Real heroes.

And then there's the virtue-signalling by appointing an Aboriginal-run security company to oversee the quarantine hotels. What might that have cost ? Five billion dollars, eventually ? Ten ?

Perhaps morons like those can be barred from getting vaccinated when a vaccine is finally developed. Wait, they're probably the very morons who deny that there are such things as viruses, and that vaccination is a Bill-Gates plot to insert nanochips into our brains, for god knows why.

Idiocy springs eternal.

Joe

One remembers a nurse on a London bridge going to the aid of a stab victim, who had been stabbed by an insane knife-wielding terrorist. And paying with her life!

Now the virus is that allegorical mindless terrorist and nobody with half a brain is going to march protesting the right to assemble while this mindless killer, [with 30 foot long arms,] is loose among us, harming and killing indiscriminately.

Even a mild case of covid-19 may require hospitalization and leave some permanent heart, kidney damage/a seriously shortened life, as a consequence.

If a knife wielding terrorist was on the loose looking for opportunities to mindlessly harm or kill?

How many nut jobs would be rattling their cages, protesting personal freedom? Claiming it's all a left-wing conspiracy, that Herr Andrews of the extreme right/Chairman Andrews of the extreme communist left, was just a power junkie getting his rocks off?

Thing is, we have a Saliva test that s 95% accurate and gives a result in seconds. And the Israeli's have it.

We could have it and deploy it around hotspots at border/bridge crossings in around a month or less with a phone call/international transfer!

One wonders why that already hasn't happened? Or that such testing could include sniffer dogs and testing for illicit drugs, simultaneously? [And perhaps, the reason why it isn't already deployed?]

Get and do the Israeli Saliva test! And all the borders and economy, could reopen to the max possible, in weeks!
Alan B.

JBowyer likes fat, ignorant coppers.

Don't talk to me about ethics commie.
Ethics means 'Everyone has a right to live how they choose so long as it doesn't harm others'

There were 1678 active cases in Victoria on 6th of June.
It was the first time since March 5 that there was not a daily increase in cases.

Clearly holding a public protest at that time, created a risk of harm to others.

I oppose all public protests at this time.
You're still free to assemble, communicate your beliefs and voice your frustrations ONLINE as you would any other time.

Your 'right' to protest should be limited when doing so results in an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

Your right to protest isn't necessarily infringed.
You are still free to voice your opinion and vent your frustrations.

Only the means with which you are permitted to protest has simply been limited; at this time.

You can go back to organising people to publicly smash stuff up and trying to hold the rest of us ransom to whatever current grievance you have, when it does not present a legitimate risk of death to others.

The real reason Andrews did not want protests against his draconian marxist laws is because he knows that the ever growing majority that are against these totally useless lockdowns are normal everyday people. They are not the white/Australian hating marxist murderers like those he gave the go ahead to throw tantrums back in June. This marxist mob are well funded by the likes of Soros and google and are part of the putried swamp that Trump is finding is deeper and deeper. The 500 doctors who have put their promotions in jeopardy by telling Andrews of how useless and damaging the lockdowns are are not all 'conspiracy' theorist. In fact the Government bureaucrats have shown how incompetent and irrational they have acted. The tide is turning at last!

At first, everyone has freedom, total freedom.

Then some of us compromised: we wanted to identify with a [human] body. A human body has limitations: it cannot go through walls, it cannot fly, it only lives that long, it is adversely affected by germs and viruses, etc., so when we chose to identify with one, the fair price was to accept the human limitations as our own.

We could still be free from the dictates of other people. True, if we failed to do as they say, they could pierce our body with sharp or even deadly objects, but so also could other beasts. This is the way life is, this is nature - it would never occur to anyone to feel guilty, remorseful or morally-compromised when chased by a lion: "oh, I am so bad for running away and climbing this tree, why did I fail to surrender to this hungry lion?".

But then, some (most?) of us made a further compromise: to join a society and delegate our defense to certain individual(s) within it.

Now this comes with a heavy price in terms of freedom. We can no longer violate the orders of our appointed individuals with a clear conscience as we would when chased by a lion or even by a neighbouring human tribe. Violating their orders now means violating our own commitments.

So should our appointed individual(s) order us: "do not protest", we must not complain for we only have ourselves to blame!

Either obey and not protest, or revoke your delegation of power (first within your own heart, then tell it to all, loud and clear). If we choose the latter, we still might not be able to physically prevent them from harming us, but then the ethical issue disappears and we revert to the lion situation. Both choices are legitimate, but don't try to eat the cake and have it too!

Finally find an appropriate quote for the Bible in my next post.

Please stay safe from virus harm, for yourselves, for your families, for your beloved friends, NOT for your hardened sadistic rulers.

[Judges 9:8-15]

8 One day the trees went out to anoint a king for themselves. They said to the olive tree, ‘Be our king.’

9 “But the olive tree answered, ‘Should I give up my oil, by which both gods and humans are honored, to hold sway over the trees?’

10 “Next, the trees said to the fig tree, ‘Come and be our king.’

11 “But the fig tree replied, ‘Should I give up my fruit, so good and sweet, to hold sway over the trees?’

12 “Then the trees said to the vine, ‘Come and be our king.’

13 “But the vine answered, ‘Should I give up my wine, which cheers both gods and humans, to hold sway over the trees?’

14 “Finally all the trees said to the thornbush, ‘Come and be our king.’

15 “The thornbush said to the trees, ‘If you really want to anoint me king over you, come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, then let fire come out of the thornbush and consume the cedars of Lebanon!’

https://www.rebelnews.com/australias_shame_watch_melbourne_police_bodyslam_our_reporter_covering_a_pandemic_lockdown_protest?e=fccbb2236aace8c0fc0c8b8fdfd7ffc2&utm_source=therebel&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ay_standwithavi_sept20&n=8

Yuyutsu

What does all that clap-trap mean? It makes no sense.
Please explain in simple English.

individual
Yes mate, no mate three bags full mate.
We all know why Ari was there don't we.
In case you don't, he supports the protest and was rightly arrested. Don't worry about the correct paperwork.

The question to ask re the Victorian fiasco is, where is the Chinese influence in public display.
Now there is a sensible job for a journalist.

Be assured, the Chinese in Sydney are keeping a very low profile.
The only time this subject gets above the surface is when a trailer park girl snots one on a train or bus journey.

Dan

Dear Daniel,

Yes, we seem to have a language problem.

You see, English is only my second language, so I never learned simple English, for most of my English was obtained from good literature and scripture, not from home: I'm afraid that during my early childhood I knew no word of English at all.

It is understandable that young children conceive adult-talk as clap-trap. All I can say to encourage you then, is what I was told in turn in my early years: "when you grow up you will understand".

Yuyutsu

People are very sensitive on this site. Telling me to grow up is actually an admission of your failure to realise your own immaturity level.
I expected better of you.

Reiterating my above to you. I have a good grip of English, since it is my native language, but I struggled to understand the point you attempted to make in your post. That’s all.

But if it makes you happy to answer with a snide remark, you go for it.

Dan

Dear Dan,

Struggling to understand something is normal among adults as well, but assuming that whatever one fails to understand is clap-trap, is childish.

Now for my point:

No eating a cake and having it too!
No asking the state to protect us and accepting its rule while retaining our freedom to refuse its orders.

We are free by nature, but we lost some of this freedom by identifying with a human body.

Nevermind, we still had some freedom left, but then we lost even more of it by delegating our defense/security/protection to other people (the state and its authorities).

If indeed we rely on the state to provide us with security (against enemies, criminals, viruses, etc.), then we have no right to complain when the state takes its dues in the form of restrictions of all sorts, including on our ability to protest.

If we never delegated the care for our security to the state, or if we wish to revoke it, then we must rise and be clear about it: not a silly protest, "oh, this particular leader is not good enough, improve him or give me another", but make a clear statement: "My life is my own", then reclaim the responsibility for your protection, defense and well-being for yourself, come what may.

Yuyutsu.

Ok, we’ll go about it this way.
You advocate for not only freedom as a society, but an individuals total freedom from the bondage of society.

You claim this definition of freedom as a right of each individual. A right to be dispossessed of responsibility towards others as a consequence.
You are entirely your own boss, with no responsibility of allegiance towards King or Country.

As justification of your position on this stand, you offer your biblical quotes which refer to the trees, and their dismissal of any hierarchy attributable to an individual characteristic or particular asset deemed more important than similar other assets, held by other trees.

Now if you don’t understand what I say herein, then that should give you a glimmer of understanding as to my confusion with your logic. Nothing to do with childishness, and definitely accumulating itself as an argument under the heading of clap-trap.
IE:

absurd or nonsensical talk or ideas.

Dan

I wonder how many 'free speech' advocates would be in favour of being 'free to make a living via their own ability' , divorced from the society they so despise ?

Come’ on Yuyutsu.

I want to unravel your thinking on this.

Dan

Dear Dan,

Please have patience, I have not forgotten you, but I can be busy elsewhere and last night when I tried to respond I was over my post-quota.

I do not advocate for any freedom that we do not already have, only for recognising that we are inherently absolutely free. Our inherent freedom, which can never be taken away, includes not only freedom from the bondage of society but goes as far even as freedom from association with a body that is bound by the laws of physics.

How we play our freedom is then up to us alone.

If we are seen to not follow the dictates of a society, then that society might take some actions against us. This might be regardless whether or not we choose to bind ourselves to that society and society's actions might even externally look the same - but they are not:

If we choose to bind ourselves to a society, but then fail to obey its dictates, then this renders us criminals and society's actions, punishment.
However, if we do not choose such bondage, then the same actions could instead be either hunt-down, persecution or defense, but never punishment (even if the society in question tries to call it so for its internal propaganda).

This is as much as my time allows me to answer right now, so I shall continue later.

Yuyutsu

*...I do not advocate for any freedom that we do not already have, only for recognising that we are inherently absolutely free. Our inherent freedom, which can never be taken away, includes not only freedom from the bondage of society but goes as far even as freedom from association with a body that is bound by the laws of physics...*

Q:

How do you propose we have complete freedom as individuals?

I'd propose that in the physical world we do not, since every moment is devoted to survival.
That state may be on a scale between urgent and non urgent, but freedom never.
We are all driven animals.

Projecting freedom into the metaphysical, things are little different.
Our freedom is actually more constrained by our psyche and its crude limitations.

Dan

Dear Dan,

An excellent question!

So long as we [mis-]conceive ourselves as a physical body, the physical limitations of that body also apply to "us".

So long as we also [mis-]conceive ourselves as a social creature, the appropriate social limitations apply too.

Now you introduced a very fine point, which I tried to avoid because it is too far from the topic, but since you mentioned it:

«Our freedom is actually more constrained by our psyche and its crude limitations.»

True, although I wouldn't call the limitations of our psyche "crude", but rather "subtle". Our psyche is not limited by the laws of physics (we can for example fly and pass through solid walls in our dreams), but it is still restricted by the law of karma, by our past actions.

So you are right: so long as we [mis-]conceive ourselves as a psyche, the karmic limitations of that psyche also apply to "us".

Mind you, this flies well over the heads of the readers of this thread and for the purpose of this specific discussion, even the level of freedom of our psyche is so great that no Andrews'es of any kind can impinge on it!

Coming back to your reservations about my biblical quote:

«As justification of your position on this stand, you offer your biblical quotes which refer to the trees, and their dismissal of any hierarchy...»

I did not require the bible for verifying my spiritual/metaphysical claims, but only to point that there is nothing new about kings like Andrews and his ilk, that this was already observed by Jotham (son of Gideon) about 3000 years ago.

Read the full chapter (Judges 9) to see how dirty politics can get... and note the irony: the thornbush asks the trees to take refuge in his shade, but we all know that the thornbush has no shade!

Yuyutsu

No man is an island,
entire of itself;
every man is a piece of the continent,
a part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less,
as well as if a promontory were.
as well as if a manor of thy friend’s
or of thine own were.
Any man’s death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind;
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
it tolls for thee

John Donne’s meditation No 17, 1623.

And this is what I understand of your position.

What angers me with your position (currently understood ), is its lack of loyalty towards the human condition we all struggle with, in its complexity.
Yours is a position of anarchy. Disloyal.

If I’m wrong, correct me.

Dan

Dear Dan,

Perhaps no man is an island - I won't argue that since my point is that we are not and never been, a man (or a woman for that matter).

We only happen to "wear" the mask of a man (or woman as the case may be) for some decades, around 100 years at the most. That mask is never free, that's for certain, but we, the wearers of this mask are!

A mask in Greek is called "persona", taken from the world of theater, hence the English 'person'. It is silly to bear loyalty to a mask: we wear it for the duration of the show and play the appropriate roll in earnest, be it a rebel, a villain, or a policeman, perhaps we even wear a Daniel-Andrews mask... but when the show is over we take the masks off and laugh our bellies out for the performance we just gave.

While we may play our different roles seriously and convincingly, we must deep inside always remember the difference between masks and mask-bearing actors, between the person we play and who we really are.

Yuyutsu

You’ve drifted from the central point.

To reiterate, your stand is of a right of total personal freedom and beholden to no man (authority).

Q:
How do you exercise that right?
Do you realise that is an anarchist position, and do you wish to dispute the point?

Your analogy of wearing a mask is further confusing the issue. A mask is a pretence.
You are not pretending to deny your view of freedom as totally devoid of responsibility to any but yourself. You are not arguing against my criticism at all.
Which brings into question now, the issue of conscience; particularly a social conscience.

A better analogy would be Hans Anderson’s character in his fable the shadow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shadow_(fairy_tale)
Like the learned man in the fable, you write about truth goodness and beauty, but nobody chooses to hear you.

And his lost shadow, which travels throughout an evil world, separated from its host, and lacking a moral compass, returns to murder the learned man, beguiling the beautiful Princess into marriage, gaining the kingdom as reward for evil.

Which is it to be Yuyutsu; a dark shadow lives in your world of total freedom.

Dan

Yuyutsu

Silence is not always golden Yuyutsu; and neither is every sunset!

Your beliefs are not compatible to the Bible. What is your authority base for a view of total autonomy? I’m interested.

Dan

Dear Dan,

I am aware that I seem to have drifted from the topic, but this is because life choices, preferences and even political ideas ought to draw on metaphysical resources.

«Your analogy of wearing a mask is further confusing the issue. A mask is a pretence.»

And so is the make-belief that we are that body which we wear.
You see, political conclusions may differ subject to our metaphysical understanding. Had it been true that we were humans, had it not been just a mask, then indeed we could arrive at very different political conclusions.

«To reiterate, your stand is of a right of total personal freedom and beholden to no man (authority).»

Not quite. I just explained that we are not a person.
We, you and I and everyone else, are absolutely free, but NOT SO our masks, not the persons that we pretend to be, thus "total personal freedom" is out of the question.

Now you also introduce the concept of "right". I don't like this term: "rights" are a civil/social concept, whereby a human authority of a kind ALLOWS certain people to do certain things. This is not freedom at all, this is pittance: freedom is natural, God-given and cannot be robbed.

«How do you exercise that right?»

As above, my freedom is not a right.
One way I exercise my freedom is by choosing to belong or not to societies and by accepting or not, certain authorites.

«Do you realise that is an anarchist position, and do you wish to dispute the point?»

It depends. A-narchy means the absence of rule. An anarchist as I understand, opposes any rule whatsoever. My modified position is that no one may rule over another without their consent. It's fine to have rules/governments, so long as those who are made to live under them have agreed to it. I envision a society where everyone participates by free choice. I do not want to live in a society, even the most wonderful one, if it forces itself upon others who disagree to have anything to do with it.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«You are not pretending to deny your view of freedom as totally devoid of responsibility to any but yourself.»

What a strange thing to say!

I never advocated against responsibility: with freedom comes responsibility and with absolute freedom comes absolute responsibility.

Nothing wrong about being responsible only to myself, for I still have myself to answer:

Suppose I agree to participate in a society and therein follow certain rules/authorities. If I fail to meet the obligations which I FREELY undertook when joining that society, then what does it make of my personality? A cheat, an undeserving weakling who cannot keep their word, an untrustworthy low-life... is this what I want my persona to become? Is this the way to respect myself and ultimately, my inherent divinity? Is this the way to approach and ultimately realise my unity with God?

«Which brings into question now, the issue of conscience; particularly a social conscience.»

Sorry, while conscience is a great guide, to nourish, observe and sharpen, I have no idea what "social conscience" means.

«you write about truth goodness and beauty, but nobody chooses to hear you.»

I wonder how you know all the readers, including those who never comment.

In any case, I do my duty by faithfully responding to your questions, then everyone has the freedom to listen or not. I will certainly not force myself on anyone and rather not write anything than have even one person forced to read my words.

Thank you for your response Yuyutsu.

I’ve followed your posts on OLO for many years, and you have intrigued me over the same period with your total difference to main stream posters.

I conclude you are a very private person and I respect that position, however, you continue to engage in the OLO environment where all is seldom friendly.

I respect your privacy, (pearls before the swine and all that angstj, and your willingness to engage is appreciated.

I’ll return to this later. I have many questions.

Dan

Yuyutsu

These are some of your under explained statements.

*...We are free by nature, but we lost some of this freedom by identifying with a human body...*

You allude here with this one, to a pre-human condition.

*... Our inherent freedom, which can never be taken away, includes not only freedom from the bondage of society but goes as far even as freedom from association with a body that is bound by the laws of physics...*

You need to elaborate for meaning. What is this inherent freedom you refer to; a theory I do not subscribe to, unless you refer to a free will. Surely that is different to what you allude to here!

I’m attempting to tease out a more definitive analogy of your description of freedom.
We fight wars for freedom. Freedom is the prize. But we are still inexorably bound to the dictates of that particular winning State power.

Also, you may choose a life of a hermit and live an apparent disconnected and free existence, but it’s an illusion.

Dan

Dear Dan,

Yes, no human is free, not even a hermit.
Even when State-power is small, there are still the constraints of the stomach, for without food a man perishes.
Even if food comes easy, there are still the constraints of germs and viruses.
Even if a man's immune-system is superb, old age cannot be defeated.

Man is mortal and nothing mortal is free from decay.

So if you identify yourself with a human, then you must conclude: "I am not free, I cannot remain young and live for as long as I want".

The good news is that you are not a human.
No matter how strongly you feel that you are.
No matter how long you have been taught, from the cradle, to think that way.
The human that you might mistakenly think you are, I previously referred to as your "mask", your "persona". It is not you.

«You allude here with this one, to a pre-human condition.»

Not "pre" but your behind-the-human true self, ever free, eternal, infinite.

«unless you refer to a free will.»

No. Your will is no doubt freer than your body, but is still not absolutely free, it still have limitations - you do not.

«I’m attempting to tease out a more definitive analogy of your description of freedom.»

Take the analogy of a gold-ring.
The ring is not free to remain a ring forever.
A day will come and it will helplessly be melted into perhaps a gold-anklet, a gold-watch, or a gold-tooth.

If you think of yourself as that gold-ring, you would constantly worry: "what will happen if they melt me?".
But if you look behind that appearance of a ring and say: "Hey, I am gold", then your worries are over:
"today they shape me as a ring, tomorrow as a bracelet, but none of that can change my golden nature!"

«We fight wars for freedom. Freedom is the prize.»

We fight and win relative freedom, temporary freedom, but at least this reminds us of the absolute freedom that we are after, without realising which we can never be satisfied.

Yuyutsu

You appear to have changed sides in your argument for human freedom.

Let’s go back to square one and clear up some loose ends. Start here again. Viz.

*... At first, everyone has freedom, total freedom.
Then some of us compromised: we wanted to identify with a [human] body...*

Unless you refer to the Judo/Christian concept of free-will, I cant imagine a situation where the event you describe above, IE choosing to sacrifice our total freedom (sic) to membership of the human tribe.

In my Judo/Christian square, that’s the one to me where I live my total existence, I fail to understand your logic.
Are you Buddhist?

If you wish to be understood by such as myself, then you need to be mindful of my limitations and willingness to grasp another concept from outside of that square.

I contend at no stage outside of the doctrine of free will, are we free to consider if we personally choose to belong to the human tribe or not. Even inside those confines of free will, we are constrained by our physical body, and inexorable membership of the human tribe.

The argument fiercely raging at the moment in the West, is how far we may extend our free will to dominate others who disagree. But that particular argument is entirely confined to the physical nature of the individual, which very much includes the physical thinking process. (Thought Policing).

Yuyutsu, what world did we leave behind when we (all of us, in your view) agreed to join the constraints of membership of the human tribe, otherwise known as society?

I’m intrigued by the concept, but I’m not getting your point, in spite of your gallant attempts.

Dan

The media continues to report on violent clashes between police and anti-lockdown protesters in Melbourne…

Meanwhile, in Adelaide where I live, a peaceful and good-natured ‘Freedom’ demonstration was held on Saturday 5 September. Many people and families assembled in the Eastern parklands for speeches, and then strolled down North Terrace to Parliament House.

The police were in attendance, and calmly and politely escorted the march down North Terrace, which had been partially closed off to facilitate the large numbers in attendance. More speeches were given on the steps of Parliament House, including one by me. Everything was very well organised.

The media was there, but there was scant reporting of this peaceful and well-attended demonstration in Adelaide. See this amateur video of the march proceeding down North Terrace: https://www.bitchute.com/video/zXPX46OB9AZq/
Many, many people turned out for this march. This was a major community political event, but not reported by 'our ABC' or Channel Nine, even though I saw their cameras there.

Instead the media focus was on the police attacks on the protesters in Melbourne, and the media was prejudiced against the protesters. It’s an absolute disgrace what is happening in Victoria.

It’s the first time in my 60 years I’ve attended a public demonstration, and I was proud to be there. It was great to exercise this political freedom, as to be expected in our liberal democracy.

Time to take it back Australia.

'It’s the first time in my 60 years I’ve attended a public demonstration, and I was proud to be there. It was great to exercise this political freedom, as to be expected in our liberal democracy.'

thankyou Elizabeth for caring for future generations. The tide is turning ever so slowly. Hopefully Aussies won't settle for tyranny for much longer.

Dear Dan,

«I cant imagine a situation where the event you describe above, IE choosing to sacrifice our total freedom (sic) to membership of the human tribe.»

Actually this happens in two stages: first the identification with our physical body and its limitations, then the acceptance of membership of the human tribe.

The first stage happens every time we are born/conceived.
The second usually occurs (except in the autism spectrum) during one's first year of life.

To be precise/pedantic, our freedom beforehand is not exactly total (there's a step before that), but it is vast, because at least we are not subject to the laws of physics when disembodied.

In a way this happens again every morning when we wake and thereby become subject again to our body's physical limitations.

«Are you Buddhist?»

No, I am Hindu by faith.

However, these understandings are shared by mystics of all religions.

«Yuyutsu, what world did we leave behind when we (all of us, in your view) agreed to join the constraints of membership of the human tribe, otherwise known as society?»

Firstly, the choice to "come" to this world by identifying with a human body, is private, not collective.

Different religions claim that we come from a variety of different worlds before and/or after our sojourn to earth, some (like heaven) freer than earth, others (like hell) even more restrictive. It is pointless to discuss because we (normally) have no memory of these worlds.

What does matter, is that we are here on earth (as a manner of speech) by choice.
When a baby is conceived, that is a biological process and not under our control, it has nothing to do with us until and unless we identify with that baby by saying "this is me!", "Let the pains and discomforts of this baby be my pains and discomforts, let the pleasures of this baby be my pleasures, may I not be comfortable unless this human body is comfortable".

[continued...]

[...continued]

This is the "original sin" - the identification with a [human] body. All other sins follow when we try to satisfy the cravings of this body.
Christianity speaks of being IN this world, but not OF this world: this is an ideal to strive for - having a body but not identifying with it, not mistaking oneself with it.

«how far we may extend our free will to dominate others who disagree»

It is wrong to try to dominate others. It essentially sends them the message, "you are a body", which is a lie, which reinforces their own sinful mis-identification with their body, then bounces off and reinforces your own sin. You don't want to do this, but at times you may still act in self-defense to say, prevent others from infecting your body with a virus. While self-defense is acceptable (for those of us who are not yet saints), we must at least know the difference and act only in self-defense, never for dominance.

Yuyutsu

I’ll tone down my criticism of your beliefs Yuyutsu, to one of foreign.
In my Christian world belief system, dealing with death and afterlife are its main component.

I’m not familiar with any teaching on pre-existence, and nothing on the subject of reincarnation to my knowledge.

Thank you for some unexpected insight into your world, which will now make the possibility for what may appear to be rude responses from myself, less likely.

Let’s not call it an olive branch, but better understanding.

Dan.