°
To be free, or wholly liberated, is to have no map upon which to rely.
The desire for stability and security (structure, rules, and consistency) is at odds with the chaos of freedom. The prospect of not knowing is a risk that produces stress, which somebody can channel into either exhilaration or anxiety.
Most of us want both freedom and security. The challenge is to oscillate between both while respecting each.
(I am free, and that is why I am lost." quote by Franz Kafka)
°
Positive freedom (unrestricted fulfillment) sounds great until the economy, state, book club, or marriage fail.
Policies, politeness, and social norms regulate chaos, provide stability, and act as guide rails as we achieve goals together.
When the guide rails are weakened or dismantled, we witness a disintegration of the community as communication breaks down and uncertainty prevails.
We’re thinking about where we’re going and which guide rails are necessary to maintain.
°
We err when we consider ideas, like freedom, as rights inherent to the species; we should think of them as scaffolding.
Freedom is built to lift us out of the filth and normalized through familiarity and cultural pressure.
To forget how the “right” arrived (i.e., to think they are immanent to the individual) is to allow ourselves to become passive in their upkeep. Once tolerant, we are easily determined (guided). While assuming we have freedom (because it is constitutive to ourselves), we perpetuate unfreedom: kicking out the scaffolding because we forgot why it was there.
°
Finding balance entails much equating of efficiencies and min/max usage.Spending energy on something without tangible use is wasteful and unproductive. Our free time now produces "mental health" or must be justified.
But what about art and stories? A blockbuster movie seems a frivolous waste of resources, as does the amateur artist’s passionate pursuits.
Yet the creation is a story that sustains us, motivates us, circumvents quantification, and disassembles our rational pretenses.
°
To unsubscribe is to opt out. To be able to exit as quickly as you entered. This frictionless training is casually adapted into our daily lives: we unsubscribe from friends, family, spouses, and life.
Controlling our feed extends to avoid discomfort or boredom: when anything is too much, we drop it.
We can instantly refill our lives with novelty. Still, the process is a simulacrum of control: in the act of perceived agency, we soothe ourselves but hold so loosely that carefree choices shape our character over time.
°
Set a precedent, and people will link to it as validation.
We must portray a new situation as similar to the precedent by stripping away context for correspondence (alignment).
We appeal to the prior decision because we consider logical consistency valid, a bedrock of fairness and justice.
Yet, every situation is unique in its specifics, and similarity is merely a heuristic. In this regard, popularity is as valid an appeal as precedence.
°
Addendum to yesterday: The image of a leader (or a concept), standing like a statue at the center of controversy, employs a multi-sided tug-of-war. With each faction working to pull the leader toward them (down) the other side counter-balances, forming guy wires (spokes) of strain that work to center, maintain, and stabilize the controversy.
°
Every belief system you follow has an authority that limits your thinking.
True freedom revels in doubt, not belief.
This reminds us that belief is not true, it is merely guide we lean on so we can escape the anxiety of doubt.
°
Once upon a time, politics was about material conditions: more food or fuel. We have transcended survival into arguing over ideology. This is a success.
Yet, ideology is firmly bound to identity.
When you lose an ideological battle, your material conditions remain relatively stable, yet a vital blow has been struck at how you relate to the world. This makes our politics more dangerous by being less grounded.
