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